mod5-bullying

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Educational Psychology Papers and Publications Educational Psychology, Department of

2016

Bullying Intervention in Adolescence: The Intersection of Legislation, Policies, and Behavioral Change Susan M. Swearer University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected]

Meredith Martin University of Rochester

Marc Brackett Yale University

Raul A. Palacios II University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers

Part of the Child Psychology Commons, Cognitive Psychology Commons, Developmental Psychology Commons, and the School Psychology Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Psychology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Psychology Papers and Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Swearer, Susan M.; Martin, Meredith; Brackett, Marc; and Palacios, Raul A. II, "Bullying Intervention in Adolescence: The Intersection of Legislation, Policies, and Behavioral Change" (2016). Educational Psychology Papers and Publications. Paper 213. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/213

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Bullying Intervention in Adolescence: The Intersection of Legislation, Policies, and Behavioral Change

Susan M. Swearer1 • Meredith Martin2 • Marc Brackett3 • Raul A. Palacios II1

Received: 31 May 2016 / Accepted: 18 July 2016

� Springer International Publishing 2016

Abstract This article reviews current research on bullying

during adolescence. The complexity of bullying behaviors

during the adolescent time period are discussed and a

review of the developmental literature on adolescence

provides suggestions for why current bullying prevention

and intervention programs are less effective for this age

group. Current anti-bullying policies and legislation are

reviewed under a framework of adolescent brain develop-

ment and the development of consequential thinking.

Suggestions for implementing social-emotional learning

programming during the adolescent period are provided

and a novel approach using social media is presented. In

order to effectively combat bullying during this develop-

mental period, programming must focus of positive

behavioral development and restorative practices.

Keywords Adolescence � Bullying � Social-emotional learning

Introduction

Schools have been inundated over the past 20 years with

bullying prevention and intervention programs (Ferguson

et al. 2007; Ryan and Smith 2009; Ttofi and Farrington

2009, 2011; Polanin et al. 2012). There are literally

hundreds of bullying- and aggression-prevention programs

being used in schools worldwide (Leff et al. 2004). How-

ever, educators have a monumental task of selecting which

bullying prevention program(s) will have the best chance

of successfully reducing bullying in their respective

schools (Ryan and Smith 2009). Traditionally, school-

based anti-bullying efforts have involved universal pro-

grams administered to the entire school population, typi-

cally with the goal of increasing awareness about bullying

and decreasing bullying behaviors among students

(Swearer et al. 2010). Although hundreds of school anti-

bullying programs have been developed and implemented,

it is unclear whether these programs are successful in

reducing bullying (Ferguson et al. 2007). More alarming is

that some anti-bullying programs have been shown to

decrease bullying by only twenty-three percent (Ttofi and

Farrington 2011) and research has still not identified all of

the critical components of effective anti-bullying programs

(Hymel et al. 2015). Adding to this complexity is the fact

that few studies have examined developmental patterns in

the prevalence of bullying beyond early adolescence (Pe-

pler et al. 2006).

While prevalence rates of bullying vary across studies

and populations studied, approximately 22 % of students

ages 12–18 reported being bullied at school during the

school year (Robers et al. 2015). Of those students,

approximately 33 % indicated they were bullied at least

once or twice per month during the school year, and

approximately 27 % of students reported that they were

cyber-bullied at least once or twice per month. Research

has also examined the prevalence of cyber-harassment

among college students and found that 33.6 % of student

had experience cyber-harassment in college and 28.4 %

had experienced in-person harassment while in high school

(Beran et al. 2012). While it is difficult to draw conclusions

& Susan M. Swearer [email protected]

1 Bullying Research Network, University of Nebraska –

Lincoln, 40 Teachers College Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0345,

USA

2 University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

3 Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

123

Adolescent Res Rev

DOI 10.1007/s40894-016-0037-9

across the sometimes conflicting research on bullying and

harassment in adolescence, it appears that bullying and

harassment affect approximate one in four adolescents.

Bullying and harassment are often used interchangeable,

and in fact, some states call their anti-bullying legislation,

HIB laws (harassment, intimidation, and bullying). While

the words, ‘‘bullying,’’ ‘‘harassment,’’ ‘‘intimidation,’’ and

‘‘drama’’ have all been used to describe mean and cruel

behavior in adolescence, most researchers and educators

agree that these behaviors are detrimental to the physical

and mental health of those involved. Bullying and harass-

ment can take many forms, including direct physical harm,

verbal taunts and threat, exclusion, humiliation, rumor-

spreading, and electronic harassment using texts, e-mails,

or online platforms (Hymel and Swearer 2015). Addition-

ally, there is evidence to suggest that bullying and

harassment negatively impact both children and adoles-

cents in terms of their academic functioning, physical

health and neurobiology, social relationships, self-percep-

tions, and their mental health (McDougall and Vaillancourt

2015). Despite the documented increase in anti-bullying

legislation, anti-bullying programming, and awareness

about the negative outcomes of involvement in bullying

and harassment, the impact of bullying- and harassment-

prevention programming appears to have minimal effects

among high school and college students.

Issues in Adolescent Development: Why Anti-Bullying Programs Are Not Working

Understanding why anti-bullying programs are less effec-

tive for adolescents requires an analysis of adolescent

development. A recent meta-analysis conducted by Yeager

et al. (2015) investigating the efficacy of 19 anti-bullying

intervention programs among mixed-ages found that cur-

rent anti-bullying intervention programs for grades eight

and above may not be as effective as previously purported.

In their meta-analysis, the authors proposed three main

considerations for the ineffectiveness of anti-bullying

intervention programs at the secondary level: (1) Changes

in the manifestation of problematic behavior, (2) Changes

in underlying causes of the problematic behavior, and (3)

Changes in the efficacy of domain-general behavior-

change techniques.

First, changes in the manifestation of problematic

behavior between primary and secondary education stu-

dents have made the development of age-appropriate anti-

bullying programs difficult (Yeager et al. 2015). Prior

research on peer bullying has focused primarily upon

understanding the characteristics and comorbidities asso-

ciated with physical forms of bullying (i.e., hitting, push-

ing, fighting) (Leff et al. 2004). However, Yeager et al.

(2015) argued that this may not be the best indicator of

bullying among adolescents as direct forms of observable

forms of aggression/bullying (e.g., hitting, insulting)

become less prevalent as individuals age and more indirect

forms of aggression/bullying (e.g., rumors, exclusion)

become more prevalent.

Second, changes in the underlying causes of the prob-

lematic behavior across elementary, middle, and high

school students may make it more difficult to identify the

root causes of bullying behavior (Yeager et al. 2015). In the

past, bullying behaviors displayed by youth were typically

explained by a deficit in social-emotional awareness and a

lack of empathetic behavior. Instead, Yeager et al. (2015)

suggest that the changes in the underlying causes may be

attributed to an adolescent’s motivation to demonstrate

social status due to biological and cognitive changes

occurring during this developmental stage, an adolescent’s

concern for social conformity, and the ease of access to

technology. With increased emphasis on autonomy, social

conformity, and increased access technology, electronic

bullying and harassment are more accessible.

Finally, Yeager et al. (2015) state that changes in the

efficacy of domain-general behavior-change techniques

may also be contributing to the ineffectiveness of anti-

bullying programs at the secondary level. Although inter-

vention programs may find success for elementary and

middle school students, this does not necessarily translate

to successful outcomes for adolescents. There are consid-

erable developmental differences between students in pri-

mary school setting and students in secondary school

settings. Among these developmental differences in ado-

lescence can be the need for autonomy, an increase in

assigned unsupervised time, the development of sexual

relationships, greater exposure to drugs and alcohol, an

increase in participation in various social media platforms,

increased involvement in high-stakes activities, and the

transition from high school to the workplace.

Even though adolescents have more autonomy than

children, they may lack agency and focus in their lives and

are regularly reminded of their limited economic or polit-

ical power when presented with culturally pervasive mes-

sages that distinguish adults from children (Milner 2004). It

is possible that adult-delivered, explicit rules against cer-

tain social behaviors, as well as direct instruction in the

classrooms, threatens the adolescent’s autonomy (Yeager

et al. 2015). Autonomy-supportive contexts involve

acknowledgment of the adolescent’s feeling, taking the

adolescent’s perspective, providing rationales, allowing

choice, and minimizing pressure (Roth et al. 2011). In their

study, Roth et al. (2011) found that there was a reduction in

self-reported bullying cases when teachers’ attempted to

take students’ perspectives in relation to pro-social and

anti-social behaviors in class.

Adolescent Res Rev

123

Another issue related to the autonomy of adolescents is

the amount of unsupervised time students in secondary

schools experience compared to students in elementary

school. Typically, elementary school students are being

supervised closely by teachers, paraeducators, administra-

tors, and parent volunteers. Being within a closely super-

vised area generally decreases the opportunity for bullying

behaviors to occur. However, as students transition to

middle school and high schools, there is an exponential

increase in freedom and autonomy. It is during this time

that students have less supervision and might engage in

risk-taking behaviors such as experimenting with drugs and

alcohol. Recent research found that most high school stu-

dents were not involved in bullying nor using drugs and

alcohol, For example, Radliff et al. (2012) found that

substance abuse and bullying status were correlated. They

also found that youth who perpetrated bullying were more

likely to report substance use and youth who both perpe-

trated bullying and who were bullied reported the highest

level of substance use.

Changes in sexual maturity could also be a contributing

factor to the ineffectiveness of anti-bully programs during

adolescence. Pepler et al. (2006) conducted a study com-

paring sex differences in the prevalence of bullying, sexual

harassment, and dating aggression, as well as comparing

adolescents who did and did not report bullying on reports

of perpetrating sexual harassment and dating aggression.

Findings indicated that bullying others was highest around

the transitional incoming year into high school with bul-

lying being reported less frequently by the end of high

school. Research suggests that weaker effects will occur on

the overall prevalence of bullying or victimization as stu-

dents age since the extant interventions are more successful

at reducing direct, observable forms of aggression than

more indirect, unobservable forms, or sexuality-related

victimization (Yeager et al. 2015).

Additionally, sexual orientation and gender identity are

also important developmental issues that intensify in ado-

lescence. Few, if any, anti-bullying programs for adoles-

cents address these important sexual and gender identity

issues. Swearer et al. (2008) reported that the number of

gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) youth in

the United States varies across studies, likely due to dif-

ferences in methodologies and the way questions about

sexual orientation are posed (Swearer et al. 2008). Unfor-

tunately, many secondary schools in the U.S. have histor-

ically been heterosexist and homophobic institutions

(Chesir-Teran 2003; Chesir-Teran and Hughes 2009;

Espelage et al. 2008; Graff and Stufft 2011; Poteat 2008;

Poteat et al. 2009; Rivers and Noret 2008; Swearer et al.

2008; Aragon et al. 2014). While this varies regionally and

by districts, schools have been mandated to provide anti-

bully programming that supports GLBT youth (Ali 2010).

This underscores the importance of effectively addressing

bullying/victimization among adolescents, as lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth are

disproportionately more likely to experience victimization

(Aragon et al. 2014; Kull et al. 2015).

Social media also plays a role in an adolescent’s strive

for popularity and status since technology enables the

prolific spread of information and allows adolescents to

keep up with ever-changing social dynamics (Boyd 2014).

In addition, various components of social media, and social

networking sites in particular, function with a level of user

anonymity (Keipi and Oksanen 2014). Because social

media makes it easy to share information broadly, people

can also easily spread hurtful gossip in an effort to assert

status, get attention, or relieve boredom (Boyd 2014; Kull

et al. 2015).

Finally, as students enter high school, they may carry the

burden of high stakes decision making, which may impact

their future educational and career goals. Students’

involvement in high-stakes activities such as advanced

placement (AP) courses, competitive high school sports,

the SAT and ACT, and other extra-curricular activities that

may determine academic scholarships to post-secondary

education, places these students in a highly competitive

atmosphere where bullying and harassment may be the

outcome of this level of competition. Many high school

students are also driving and entering the workforce for the

first time in their lives. Their new found mobility and

earning potential provides them with the possibility to

engage in new opportunities not granted to elementary or

middle school students. Given these development consid-

erations, it is not sufficient to ‘‘age up’’ existing anti-bul-

lying programs to meet the needs across all age groups

(Yeager et al. 2015). There is a need to develop anti-bul-

lying and anti-harassment programs that address develop-

mental issues in adolescence.

Policies, Legislation, and the Adolescent Brain

The Relationship Between State Legislative

Mandates and School Policies

The past two decades have seen a dramatic increase in

public demand for anti-bullying legislation. Although there

are currently no federal regulations against bullying in the

U.S., as of March 2016, all fifty states have enacted laws

requiring school districts have policies that address bully-

ing. These laws vary widely in their scope and detail, but

most include basic provisions for reporting and investi-

gating cases of bullying, disciplinary action, and the

training and responsibility of staff members (Cornell and

Limber 2015; U.S. Department of Education 2011). In

Adolescent Res Rev

123

response to growing problems with cyberbullying, 48 states

have expanded anti-bullying laws to include misbehavior

off campus and online if it contributes to a hostile school

environment (US Department of Education 2011; www.

cyberbullying.org). Twenty-three of these states’ laws refer

specifically to ‘‘cyberbullying.’’

Anti-bullying laws are designed to improve school

safety by mandating that schools develop policies to pro-

hibit, respond to, and reduce the incidence of bullying

(Dresler-Hawke and Whitehead 2009). To help districts

adhere to these laws, 41 states have developed model

bullying policies, providing guidelines for implementing

anti-bullying initiatives and meeting state mandates (www.

stopbullying.gov). There is limited research examining the

efficacy of this legislation. However, an investigation by

the U.S. Department of Education (2011) suggests that

school districts in states with more expansive anti-bullying

laws also tend to have more comprehensive and expansive

policies. There is also some initial evidence that improving

legislation can be beneficial in reducing bullying. Students

in states with anti-bullying legislation meeting more of the

standard guidelines proposed by the Department of Edu-

cation were less likely to report bullying in school

(Hatzenbuehler et al. 2015).

Despite these advances, a number of challenges face

school districts attempting to meet state requirements.

Anti-bullying laws rarely come with funding to support the

development and implementation of school policy. More-

over, although some states provide model policies and

implementation plans, many still offer no clear guidelines

for school officials in how to meet state mandates (Weaver

et al. 2013). There is currently no agreed-upon legislative

definition of bullying across states. Adding to the potential

for confusion, what constitutes bullying is often ambigu-

ously worded, overly broad, and conflated with other legal

definitions (i.e., harassment) (Gladden et al. 2014; Sacco

et al. 2012; Swearer et al. 2009; U.S. Department of

Education 2011).

The conflation of the terms harassment and bullying, in

particular, impacts schools’ ability to clearly and effec-

tively address bullying. Cascardi et al. (2014) reported 22

states using the terms harassment and bullying synony-

mously in legislation and policy. Harassment has a long

legal history as a term denoting threatening or abusive

conduct against protected classes of individuals (e.g., based

on gender, race, disability) (Cornell and Limber 2015).

Laws that define prohibited behaviors in terms of harass-

ment may be leaving victims who do not fall into one of the

protected classes unprotected. At the same time, violation

of federal civil rights laws take precedent over state- or

district-level anti-bullying legislation. Confusing defini-

tions may contribute to school officials’ failure to meet

their legal obligations in addressing harassment when

bullying targets a member of a protected class (Dear Col-

league Letters issued by the U.S. Department of Education

2010, 2013, 2014; Rose et al. 2012).

State’s legal definitions of bullying also commonly

differ from accepted scholarly definitions, which specify

bullying as involving harmful behavior that is (a) inten-

tional, (b) repeated, and (c) involving a power-imbalance

(Gladden et al. 2014; Olweus 2013; Swearer et al. 2009). In

contrast, legal policies often adopt a broader definition,

equating bullying with peer conflict, threats, and aggres-

sion (Gladden et al. 2014). This may be due, in part, to the

difficulty of assessing power imbalance. Adults and even

adolescents themselves may not be attuned to the subtleties

of perceived differences in power between peers (Cornell

and Huang 2014; Olweus 2013). Nonetheless, this is a

defining feature of bullying that distinguished it from other

forms of peer aggression, and extensive research demon-

strates that what is required to successfully address and

prevent bullying is unique (Cascardi et al. 2014; Rodkin

et al., 2015; Swearer et al. 2009). Policies and procedures

that to not attend to the unique nature of bullying behavior

run the risk of being ineffective, or even iatrogenic (Ttofi

and Farrington 2011).

Harsh Consequences and Zero Tolerance

Ambiguity in legislative proscriptions extend to the con-

sequences of bullying. Although the majority of states

require or encourage disciplinary action for students who

bully, the nature of these actions vary widely (Sacco et al.

2012). Most commonly, discipline takes the form of sus-

pension or expulsion (Swearer et al. 2009; Cornell and

Limber 2015). This is exemplified in the preponderance of

Zero Tolerance policies adopted by schools in the wake of

The Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 (Pub L No. 103-882,

§14601). Originally designed to reduce severe school vio-

lence, school districts quickly expanded the scope of zero

tolerance policies to encompass even relatively minor

infractions such as fighting, disruptive behavior, truancy,

and verbal disrespect (American Psychological Association

2008). This has empowered teachers and school officials to

automatically expel or suspend adolescents, even for what

amounts to obnoxious but relatively ‘‘normal’’ adolescent

behavior. Today, bringing a weapon to school accounts for

less than 2 % of student suspensions and expulsions

(Council on School Health 2013).

The regular adoption of zero tolerance policies to address

bullying and related misbehavior persists despite the over-

whelming evidence that this approach does not reduce bul-

lying behavior andmay even have significant costs in term of

greater school disengagement and involvement in the juve-

nile justice system (Borgwald and Theixos 2013; Merrell

et al. 2008; Sacks and Salem 2009; Skiba and Knesting

Adolescent Res Rev

123

2001). Clearly the emphasis is on punitive action as opposed

to rehabilitation or school-wide climate change. In sharp

contrast to thewidespread use of zero tolerance policies, only

one third of state anti-bullying laws advise providing coun-

seling or other support service (Alley and Limber 2009;

Sacco et al. 2012). This is in the face of clear evidence for

deleterious mental health and adjustment consequences

associated with bullying, for perpetrators as well as victims

(Gina and Pozzoli 2009; Glew et al. 2008; Holt et al. 2015;

McDougall and Vaillancourt 2015; Morgan et al. 2014;

Swearer et al. 2009). Overly punitive responses to bullying

can also have negative consequences for the school climate

as a whole (Limber 2010). For example, schools applying

more suspensions and expulsions have lower academic

achievement school-wide, even after controlling for

socioeconomic differences (American Psychological Asso-

ciation 2008; American Psychological Association Zero

Tolerance Task Force 2006).

Schools’ adoption of zero tolerance policies in regards to

bullying may be exacerbated by liability fears. Although the

tendency to settle out of court makes it difficult to precisely

determine the frequency of litigation against schools related

to bullying, there does appear to be a fairly dramatic increase

in these cases over the past decade (Cornell and Limber

2015; Holben and Zirkel 2014). Several high profile cases,

including Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education in

(1999) and Scruggs v. Meriden Board of Education in 2006,

have adjudicated against school districts on the ground that

they evidenced ‘‘deliberate indifference’’ towards the plight

of the victimized plaintiffs. Both of these cases involved

violations of federal Title IX protections against sexual

harassment. However, the trend may be moving towards

greater liability for schools failing to protect students from

peer bullying. In 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled

in support of a student subjected to bullying based on his

perceived sexual orientation, citing that ‘‘students in the

classroom are entitled to no less protection than adults in the

workplace’’ (LW v. Toms River Regional School Board of

Education). The combination of fears for litigation, confu-

sion regarding state laws about bullying, and the seeming

ease of simply removing a troublesome student from the

classroom sets up zero tolerance as a relatively ‘‘easy’’

option for addressing bullying behavior, regardless of its

actual efficacy or cost to the students involved. The tendency

to rely on suspensions as appropriate sanctions for misbe-

havior may also disrupt schools’ ability to implement more

comprehensive anti-bullying preventions (Hall and Chap-

man 2016).

Bullying and the Adolescent Brain

Unfortunately, laws and policy regarding bullying behavior

is often formed without careful attention to developmental

considerations during adolescence (Steinberg 2013). We

now know that adolescents’ brains continue to develop into

their early 20’s (Nelson et al. 2003; Steinberg 2008). The

relative immaturity of the adolescent brain results in cog-

nitive, emotional, and psychological biases that place them

at particular risk for risky and delinquent behaviors, even

in the face of clear negative consequences. Middle ado-

lescence is characterized by a combination of heightened

reward sensitivity and sensation-seeking, attunement to the

peer group, and underdeveloped impulse control (Steinberg

2008; Steinberg et al. 2009; Luna et al. 2004). During this

time, the limbic system (emotion) of the brain outpaces the

development of the prefrontal cortex (cognitive control),

resulting in an imbalance that favors impulsive and emo-

tionally-driven decision making, particularly within emo-

tionally charged situations (Cohen and Casey 2014; Mills

et al. 2014; Somerville and Casey 2010). Given how

emotionally provocative bullying can be, adolescents

involved as perpetrators, victims, or bystanders may all be

prone to acting impulsively, even when they know better.

In addition to this emotion-control imbalance, adoles-

cents are highly attuned to the social group. Extensive

research now supports later adolescence as the peak of

social sensitivity and peer influence (Blakemore and Mills

2014; Crone and Dahl 2012; Somerville 2013). This is

supported by fMRI research that demonstrates adolescents’

greater activity in the reward-centers of the brain in

response to the presence and positive social feedback of

peers, relative to both children and adults (Jones et al.

2014; Smith et al. 2015; Steinberg 2010). Moreover, just

the presence of peers leads adolescents to behave more

impulsively and take greater risks (Gardner and Steinberg

2005; Steinberg 2010). Given that bullying occurs in the

presence of bystanders more than 80 % of the time

(O’Connell et al. 1999; Polanin et al. 2012), peers likely

play an important role in escalating the frequency and

intensity of bullying behavior.

These unique features of the adolescent brain also

highlight another aspect to bullying that has gone largely

ignored by anti-bullying legislation and policy. Adoles-

cents’ unique sensitivity toward social rewards makes peer

admiration and approval a particularly desirable goal. The

developmental literature recognizes bullying behavior as

being both goal-directed and associated with social benefits

that can serve to sustain the behavior despite costs (e.g.,

Ellis et al. 2015; Hawley et al. 2011; Rodkin et al. 2015;

Salmivalli 2010; Volk et al. 2014). For example, instances

of bullying are commonly rewarded with immediate boosts

to popularity, status, and self-esteem for perpetrators (Ellis

et al. 2015; Reijntjes et al. 2013). The pull towards social

rewards may be so salient that adolescents struggle to

control their risk-taking behavior even when they are aware

of the likelihood of negative consequences (Gardner and

Adolescent Res Rev

123

Steinberg 2005; Smith et al. 2014). This sensitivity, com-

bined with tendencies to downplay future consequences in

lieu of immediate rewards, suggests adolescents will be

especially resistance to attempts to impose sanctions on

status-relevant behaviors. In fact, high-status bullies,

whose strategies have been most ‘‘successful’’ in eliciting

social rewards, appear to be the most resistant to efforts to

reduce bullying behavior (Garandeau et al. 2014).

Together, these findings suggest that current legislation

and policy regarding bullying may be missing the mark.

Overly harsh and punitive approaches focus on increasing

the costs of bullying without equivalent attention to the

potential rewards that may be sustaining these strategies

(Ellis et al. 2015). Certain consequences, including out of

school suspensions, may even increase the social or repu-

tational benefits of misbehavior in the short-term in the

form of positive feedback from peers. Considered in light

of the evidence for adolescents’ immature brain function-

ing, hardline policies mandating suspensions or expulsions

seem especially harsh. The rationale for zero tolerance is

based on the idea that harsh consequences will deter both a

perpetrators’ misbehavior and other students’ misbehavior

by making adolescents think twice about the costs (Cornell

and Limber 2015). Unfortunately, adolescents rarely think

twice. Their ability to consider the long-term consequences

of their actions and to control their impulses are impaired

(Luna et al. 2004; Steinberg 2013). They are not well-

positioned to carefully consider the negative consequences

of their actions, whether for their victims or for themselves.

Adolescence and the Juvenile Justice System

The consequences of zero tolerance for anti-bullying policies

are not limited to their inefficacy in reducing school bullying.

They have actively contributed to its increased criminaliza-

tion (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance

Taskforce 2006; Cascardi et al. 2014; Casella 2003). At least

twelve state anti-bullying laws currently prescribe criminal

sanctions for perpetrators, ranging from school suspension to

incarceration (U.S. Department of Education 2011; www.

cyberbullying.org). Adolescent bullies who are forcefully

suspended from school are also more likely to become sub-

sequently involved in the juvenile justice system (Fabelo

et al. 2011; Gonsoulin et al. 2012; Wald and Losen 2003).

Ironically, this may be especially true for adolescents with

fewer behavioral problems prior to suspension (Monahan

et al. 2014). Several states have made even clearer moves

towards criminalization, by modifying existing criminal law,

or creating new crimes specific to bullying (Cornell and

Limber 2015). For example, in 2006 Idaho specified

harassment, intimidation, or bullying among students as a

crime under Chapter 9 Assault and Battery (I.C. §18–917A).

Nowhere is the mismatch between public policy and

developmental science in regards to adolescence more

evident than in the juvenile justice system. For many

adolescents, age is the only factor keeping them from being

tried in adult courts (Mears et al. 2014). As of 2014, 41

states use 17 years of age as the upper age of original

jurisdiction, 8 states use 16 years, and 2 states (i.e., New

York and North Carolina) use 15 as the cutoff (U.S.

Department of Justice 2014). From a developmental per-

spective, these cut-offs are arbitrary. No scientific research

indicates that 15, 16, or 17-year olds differ substantially

from one another in their social or cognitive abilities

(Loeber and Farrington 2012; Scott and Steinberg 2008).

Even within the juvenile courts, older adolescents are more

likely to receive harsher punishments (e.g., time in a resi-

dential facility) (Brown and Sorensen 2014; Mears et al.

2014). This is despite a well-known, normative peak in

delinquent behavior and risk-taking in middle-to-late ado-

lescence, followed by a decrease as individuals enter

adulthood (Moffitt 1993; Steinberg 2009).

The original purpose of the juvenile justice system was

founded on the principle that children, by virtue of their

immaturity, had more limited accountability and greater

potential for rehabilitation compare with adults (Bernard

and Kurlychek 2010). What we know about the develop-

mental period of adolescence suggests that teens are both

less culpable for poor decision making and more likely to

demonstrate substantial improvements in their cognitive

and social abilities with age (Cornell and Limber 2015).

Moreover, it is well-documented argument that incarcera-

tion of adolescents is both more costly than prevention or

treatment, and ultimately unsuccessful in reducing misbe-

havior (American Psychological Association Zero Toler-

ance Task Force 2006; Bear et al. 2000; Nance and Novy

2011).

Similar criticisms have been made against harsh sexting

(i.e., exchanging sexually explicit images using electronic

media) laws. Until recently, legal cases involving adoles-

cent sexting have relied on child pornography laws. Federal

statutory definitions criminalize sexually explicit conduct,

including images, with an individual under 18 (U.S.C.

§2256(2)(B)) and consequences commonly include jail

time or registration as a sex offender. The prevalence of

sexting behavior is unclear, with studies ranging from 7 %

to as much as 32 % of adolescents reporting participating

in sexting as sender or receiver (Dake et al. 2012; Mitchell

et al. 2012). Increasing recognition that the exchange of

self-produced sexual images among teens is a distinct

phenomenon has led many states to consider legislative

reform, although the empirical research on sexting remain

sparse. Sexting policies have been similarly plagued by

ambiguously worded and overly broad definitions of the

prohibited behaviors (Judge 2012; Sacco et al. 2010).

Adolescent Res Rev

123

However, progress has been made. Currently, twenty U.S.

states have laws regarding sexting, and all twenty include

provisions for when two minors are involved in sending or

receiving explicit content (www.cyberbullying.org). As

with bullying, adolescents’ neurological immaturity may

play an important role in their decision-making.

Researchers find that adolescents’ sexting is often impul-

sive and emotionally driven (Judge 2012; Sacco et al.

2010). Accordingly, some legislation limits the severity of

punitive consequences for adolescents involved in sexting,

although the prescribed punishments range from counsel-

ing or informal sanctions up to felony offense.

Adolescence and Consequential Thinking

Given the research on adolescent development, brain

development, and anti-bullying programming and policies,

it is not surprising that programming and policies are lar-

gely ineffective for older adolescents. State legislation has

a long way to go in bringing anti-bullying policies and

mandates closer in line with developmental science. Cur-

rently, the consequences for adolescents who bully are

overly punitive during a developmental period when the

social rewards associated with bullying have the greatest

influence and adolescents are least capable of carefully

considering the negative consequences of their actions.

Confusing definitions and guidelines for meeting state

mandates add to the difficulties schools face in imple-

menting effective reforms. This is on top of growing evi-

dence that zero tolerance policies relying on suspensions

and expulsions simply do not reduce the occurrence of

bullying and, in fact, often have negative consequences.

However, the past few years have seen greater empirical

and public attention on the problem of bullying. The U.S.

Department of Education, in 2010, published guidelines for

eleven key components that should be included in anti-

bullying laws to help ensure clear and comprehensive

coverage (US Department of Education 2010; www.stop

bullying.gov). Lawmakers and school officials are

increasingly recognizing the value of adopting alternatives

to zero tolerance in responding to student misbehavior

more broadly. In 2015, the U.S. Departments of Education

and Justice hosted a conference at the White House on

‘‘rethinking discipline,’’ bringing school officials and law

makers together to discuss strategies for creating positive

school climates and alternatives to suspension. Empirical

evidence grows supporting the value of adopting school-

wide prevention efforts, providing support for the mental

health of both victims and perpetrators, and developing

disciplinary strategies that are graduated to the nature and

severity of individual cases of bullying (Hymel and

Swearer 2015; Morgan et al. 2014; Nickerson et al. 2013;

Swearer et al. 2010). Given the power of legislation to

effect change, continued attention and reform efforts hold

promise for bridging the gap between developmental sci-

ence and efforts to reduce bullying in schools.

Social-Emotional Learning: Foundational Skills for Healthy Relationships

An alternative to focusing on bullying, recent research has

emphasized the role of positive behavioral interventions

(http://www.pbis.org/school/bully-prevention) and social-

emotional learning. Social and emotional learning involves

the processes through which students and adults acquire

and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills

necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and

achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others,

establish and maintain positive relationships, and make

responsible decisions (Durlak et al. 2011). The Collabo-

rative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning

(CASEL) includes five core competencies for social-emo-

tional learning: (1) Self-awareness—Recognizing one’s

emotions and values as well as one’s strengths and limi-

tations; (2) Self-management—Managing emotions and

behaviors to achieve one’s goals; (3) Social awareness—

Showing understanding and empathy for others; (4) Rela-

tionship skills—Forming positive relationships, working in

teams, and dealing directly with conflict; and (5) Respon-

sible decision making—Making ethical, constructive

choices about personal and social behavior (Collaborative

for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning 2003).

Participation in social-emotional learning programs was

associated with positive impacts on six major student

outcomes, including improved social skills, attitudes

toward self and others, social behavior, and academic

performance, as well as, reduced conduct problems and

emotional distress. The impact on academic performance

translated to an 11 percentile point gain in students’

achievement test scores (Durlak et al. 2011). Students who

receive social-emotional programming academically out-

perform their peers, get better grades, and graduate at

higher rates (Bridgeland et al. 2013). Research has indi-

cated that social-emotional learning programs with the best

outcomes are multiyear in duration, use interactive, rather

than purely knowledge-based instructional methods, and

are integrated into the life of the school rather than being

implemented as marginal add-ons (Zins et al. 2004).

Despite the proven positive academic and social outcomes

from SEL, there are fewer SEL programs for older

adolescents.

Adolescent Res Rev

123

The RULER Approach

Researchers at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence

have spent 15 years developing evidence-based approaches

to teaching social and emotional learning across the devel-

opmental spectrum. RULER (www.ruler.yale.edu) is the

Center’s signature, whole-school approach to social-emo-

tional learning that is grounded in both emotional intelli-

gence (Mayer and Salovey 1997) and ecological systems

theories (Bronfenbrenner 1979). It is built upon decades of

research showing that the skills associated with recognizing,

understanding, labeling, expressing, and regulating emotion

(i.e., the RULER skills) are essential to effective leading,

teaching, and learning, as well as other key outcomes,

including sound decision making, quality relationships,

mental and physical health and both academic andworkplace

performance (Brackett and Rivers 2013). Among adoles-

cents, multiple studies have shown that teens with higher

emotional intelligence have few attention problems, less

anxiety and depression, better quality friendships, and aca-

demic performance (Rivers et al. 2012).

RULER begins with educating adult stakeholders—

leaders, teachers, and support—so they can develop their

own emotional intelligence skills, share a common lan-

guage with students, and be the role models for applying

emotional intelligence in everyday interactions. RULER

training begins with four ‘‘anchor tools’’ which integrate

emotional intelligence into everyday routines of the school

and classroom learning environments. Ultimately, RULER

is designed to embed emotional intelligence into the mis-

sion, vision, norms, policies, daily instruction and inter-

actions with families and the community.

The four anchor tools are the Charter, Mood Meter,

Meta-Moment and Blueprint. The Charter is developed

collaboratively by faculty and staff (school charter) and

across each grade level for students The Charter focuses on

the feelings each stakeholder wants to have in their com-

munity, the identification of behaviors that foster those

feelings, and guidelines for handling uncomfortable feel-

ings and conflict. The Mood Meter is a tool to help all

stakeholders identify feelings, build self- and social-

awareness, set goals for how they want to feel, and develop

emotion regulation strategizes to achieve daily goals. It’s

also used by educators to differentiate instruction. The

Meta-Moment is a process to both improve reflective

practices and develop the ability to manage difficult trig-

gers. A key element of this tool is the cultivation of one’s

best self in order to be more preventative than reactive

when dealing with triggers. The Blueprint is a problem-

solving tool for complex interpersonal problems. It helps

all stakeholders understand others’ perspectives and to

unpack the causes and consequences of difficult situations,

including bullying.

Advanced training for middle school and high school

students, includes the ‘‘Feeling Words Curriculum’’ for

grades 6–8 and a series of courses for 9th to 12th grade

students. The Feeling Words Curriculum training focuses

on teaching educators how to embed an emotion vocabu-

lary into existing lessons using a series of ‘‘steps,’’ which

include: personalized learning (e.g., storytelling around

feelings), creative connections (e.g., visual and performing

arts activities), home-school connections, character analy-

sis, and cooperative learning (e.g., discovering effective

emotion regulation strategies in small groups). See

Brackett et al. (2012) for a more detailed overview of the

Feeling Words Curriculum.

Research on Social-Emotional Learning

and RULER

Accumulating evidence supports RULER’s theory of

change, including the positive effects of RULER on

proximal and distal outcomes for educators and pre-school,

elementary and middle school students. One quasi-experi-

mental study tested the impact of RULER on 273 fifth and

sixth grade students in 15 classrooms across three ele-

mentary schools (Brackett et al. 2012). Each school was

assigned randomly to implement RULER in either fifth or

sixth grade. Students were followed for one academic year

with pre- and post-intervention data collection. Students in

RULER classrooms relative to those in comparison class-

rooms had significantly greater gains in academic perfor-

mance, specifically in English language arts and work

habits/social development, compared to students in class-

rooms without RULER. The most rigorous study to date

was a 2-year randomized controlled trial with 62 schools,

including 155 classrooms, 105 teachers, and 3824 students

(Rivers et al. 2013). Schools were assigned randomly to

either integrate RULER into their fifth-and sixth-grade

English language arts (ELA) classrooms or to serve as a

comparison school, using their standard ELA curriculum.

At the conclusion of the first year of implementation,

classrooms in RULER schools were rated by independent

observers as having more positive emotional climates (e.g.,

greater warmth and connectedness between teachers and

students and higher regard for students’ perspectives)

compared to classrooms in ‘‘business-as-usual’’ schools

(Rivers et al. 2013). Furthermore, results based on teacher-

reports showed more emotion-focused interactions between

teachers and students and cooperative learning strategies in

RULER classrooms. A follow-up study demonstrated that

first-year shifts in classroom emotional climate were fol-

lowed by improvements in classroom organization and

instruction by the end of the second year (Hagelskamp

et al. 2013). Compared to classrooms in the ‘‘business-as-

usual’’ schools, classrooms in RULER schools maintained

Adolescent Res Rev

123

more positive emotional climates and also showed impact

on more distal outcomes, including better classroom

organization and instructional support. Finally, it is

expected that how RULER is implemented likely influ-

ences key outcomes. In one study examining the fidelity of

RULER’s implementation, students’ higher emotional

intelligence, more developed social problem-solving and

conflict resolution skills were greater when their teachers

had attended more trainings, taught more lessons, and were

rated by naı̈ve observers as high-quality implementers

(Reyes et al. 2012).

Social-Emotional Learning in Adolescence

Integrating emotional intelligence training at the high

school level has proven to be more challenging given the

already overburdened schedules of many high school stu-

dents and educators. Thus far, research across public, pri-

vate, and boarding schools has demonstrated that a series of

courses from 9th to 12th grade appears to be the most

effective way to integrate RULER into high school set-

tings. The courses included in RULER for high schools are

highly experiential and ask students to consider three big

questions: (1) Who am I? (2) What do I want out of high

school career and beyond? (3) How am I going to get

there? Throughout the courses, students build greater self-

awareness through assessments of personality, mindset,

and essential life skills such as emotional intelligence and

creativity. They also build a vision for what they hope to

achieve throughout their high school career. This vision is

revisited periodically to ensure they are either on track or

that they need change course based on a shift in their goals,

values, or overarching vision. Students also identify

strength and challenge areas, engage in self-reflective

practices, and set goals for their physical and mental health,

extracurricular activities, relationships, and academics. The

larger goal of the course(s) is to apply all of this infor-

mation to achieve their vision. As the high school RULER

course is being developed, experiments to study outcomes

and effectiveness are underway. Anecdotal feedback from

high school educators and students has been very positive

with many students indicating the value and importance of

having time to reflect and develop skills they need to thrive

in the ‘‘real world.’’

Facebook and Social-Emotional Learning

Given the complexities associated with the systemic inte-

gration of emotional intelligence into high school settings,

the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence in collaboration

with Facebook developed a second, student-centered

approach to social-emotional learning. InspirED (www.

inspired.facebook.com) is a new resource center and online

community that focuses on helping students and educators

create more positive emotional climates in their schools. At

the heart of inspirED is the creation of the ‘‘inspirED

team’’ that is comprised of students and educators who

work together to help create the best possible school cli-

mate. Teams work with school administrators to (1) con-

duct assessments that provide teams with immediate

feedback on the emotional climate of the school, (2)

unpack the findings of the assessment, (3) support the

implementation of resources from the resource center that

were (and will continue to be) developed by students in

collaboration with social-emotional learning experts and

high school educators, and (4) evaluate shifts in the emo-

tional climate. The resources, which also are rooted in the

latest research on social-emotional learning, positive youth

development, and classroom climate, come in three for-

mats: 10-min activities, 50-min classroom lessons, and

project-based learning opportunities. The resource center

also features video clips from related youth-serving orga-

nizations, and readings from scholarly and popular articles

and websites. InspirED also provides opportunities for

students, educators, and SEL experts around the globe to

connect and share best practices, ask for advice, discuss

challenges, and celebrate successes through two public

Facebook groups, inspirED Educators (for adults) and

inspirED Changemakers (for students).

Conclusion

After four decades of research and programming on bul-

lying prevention and intervention (Hymel and Swearer

2015), will we really be able to end bullying and harass-

ment? The answer has to be, ‘‘yes!’’ However, in order to

end bullying and harassment, researchers, educators, par-

ents, and students must team up with technology, business,

communities, foundations, and stakeholders dedicated to

creating a world where bullying and harassment do not

exist. These efforts must be grounded in developmental

science and implementation science if they are to be

effective across primary, secondary, and collegiate settings.

The inspirED mission serves to create lasting, positive

behavioral change among adolescents and adults. Collec-

tively, when we can change the narrative on bullying and

harassment though education and social change, we can

create a better world for everyone.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the members of the Bullying Research Network (http://brnet.unl.edu) for providing a

supportive network of researchers from whom we learn a great deal.

We would also like to think Drs. Jennifer Green and Melissa Holt for

their leadership on the special issue on adolescent bullying. We

appreciate their guidance and patience as we worked on several

iterations of this manuscript. Ultimately, translational research will be

Adolescent Res Rev

123

the key to ending bullying and providing evidence-based approaches

to stopping these behaviors. This special issue makes an important

contribution to our understanding of bullying behaviors during ado-

lescence. SS would like to acknowledge Born This Way Foundation

for their support of translational research and to the College of

Education and Human Sciences for supporting the Bullying Research

Network. MB would like to acknowledge Born This Way Foundation

for their partnership in the Emotion Revolution, Jamie Lockwood

from Facebook, and Robin Stern, Seth Wallace, and Nikki Elbertson

at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. RP would like to

acknowledge Born This Way Foundation for their research support

and to Dr. Susan Swearer for her guidance.

Authors’ Contributions SS conceived of the idea for the manuscript and helped draft and edit the manuscript. MM drafted the manuscript

content related to the limitations of current anti-bullying policy and

legislation, and its inconsistencies with scientific knowledge of ado-

lescent development. MB’s contributions focused on a description of

the Emotion Revolution research project and InspirED, an innovative,

online resource center that was created to help schools integrate

lessons social and emotional learning to build more positive school

climates. RP provided a literature review on anti-bullying programs

for adolescents and edited the manuscript. All authors read and

approved the final manuscript.

Funding MB received funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for funding the Emotion Revolution Research. RP

received funding from Born This Way Foundation. SS and MB did

not have funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The authors report no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval This manuscript was written in accordance with the APA 6th edition style manual. Since this is a review article, we

did not need IRB approval.

Informed Consent Since this is a review article, we did not need informed consent.

References

Ali, R. (2010) U. S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

(2010). Dear colleague letter: Harassment and bullying. http://

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf.

Alley, R., & Limber, S. P. (2009). Legal issues for school personnel.

In S. M. Swearer, D. L. Espelage, & S. A. Napolitano (Eds.),

Bullying prevention and intervention: Realistic strategies for

schools (pp. 53–73). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force.

(2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An

evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psycholo-

gist, 63, 852–862. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852.

Aragon, S. R., Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koeing, B. W. (2014).

The influence of peer victimization on educational outcomes for

LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high school students. Journal of LGBT

Youth, 11(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/193653.2014.840761.

Bear, G. G., Webster-Stratton, C., Furlong, M. J., & Rhee, S. (2000).

Preventing aggression and violence. Preventing school prob-

lems—Promoting school success: Strategies and programs that

work, 18, 140–157.

Beran, T. N., Rinaldi, C., Bickham, D. S., & Rich, M. (2012).

Evidence for the need to support adolescents dealing with

harassment and cyber-harassment: Prevalence, progression, and

impact. School Psychology International, 33, 562–576. doi:10.

1177/0143034312446976.

Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile

justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blakemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive

period for sociocultural processing? Annual Review of Psychol-

ogy, 65, 187–207. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202.

Borgwald, K., & Theixos, H. (2013). Bullying the bully: Why zero-

tolerance policies get a failing grade. Social Influence, 8,

149–160. doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.724030.

Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked

teens. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Brackett, M. A, Caruso, D. R, Stern, R. (2006–2015). Anchors of

emotional intelligence. New Haven, CT: Emotionally Intelligent

Schools, LLC.

Brackett, M. A., & Rivers, S. E. (2013). Transforming students’ lives

with social and emotional learning. In R. Pekrun & L.

Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions

in education (pp. 368–388). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor

and Francis Group.

Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Reyes, M. R., & Salovey, P. (2012).

Enhancing academic performance and social and emotional

competence with the RULER feeling words curriculum. Learn-

ing and Individual Differences, 22, 218–224. doi:10.1016/j.

lindif.2010.10.002.

Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A

national teacher survey on how social and emotional learning

can empower children and transform schools. https://casel.

squarespace.com/library/the-missing-piece.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:

Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Brown, J. M., & Sorensen, J. R. (2014). Legal and extra-legal factors

related to the imposition of blended sentences. Criminal Justice

Policy Review, 25, 227–241. doi:10.1177/0887403412465431.

Cascardi, M., Brown, C., Iannarone, M., & Cardona, N. (2014). The

problem with overly broad definitions of bullying: Implications

for the schoolhouse, the statehouse, and the ivory tower. Journal

of School Violence, 13, 253–276. doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.

846861.

Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale,

consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105,

872–892. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00271.

Chesir-Teran, D. (2003). Conceptualizing and addressing heterosex-

ism in high schools: A setting-level approach. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 31, 269–279. doi:10.1023/a:

1023910820994.

Chesir-Teran, D., & Hughes, D. (2009). Heterosexism in high school

and victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning

students. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 963–975. doi:10.

1007/s10964-008-9364-x.

Cohen, A. O., & Casey, B. J. (2014). Rewiring juvenile justice: The

intersection of developmental neuroscience and legal policy.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 63–65. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.

11.002.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2003).

Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-

based social and emotional learning programs. https://casel.

squarespace.com/s/safe-and-sound-il-edition.pdf.

Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2014). School counselor use of peer

nominations to identify victims of bullying. Professional School

Counseling, 18(1), 191–205. doi:10.5330/2156-759x-18.1.191.

Adolescent Res Rev

123

Cornell, D., & Limber, S. P. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of

bullying at school. American Psychologist, 70, 333–343. doi:10.

1037/a0038558.

Council on School Health. (2013). Out-of-school suspension and

expulsion. Pediatrics, 131(3), e1000–e1007. doi:10.1542/peds.

2012-3932.

Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a

period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility.

Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 636–650. doi:10.1038/

nrn3313.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Maziarz, L., & Ward, B. (2012). Prevalence

and correlates of sexting behavior in adolescents. American

Journal of Sexuality Education, 7, 1–15. doi:10.1080/15546128.

2012.650959.

Davis V. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).

Dresler-Hawke, E., & Whitehead, D. (2009). The behavioral ecolog-

ical model as a framework for school-based anti-bullying health

promotion interventions. The Journal of School Nursing, 25,

195–204. doi:10.1177/1059840509334364.

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, 405–432.

Ellis, B. J., Volk, A. A., Gonzalez, J., & Embry, D. D. (2015). The

meaningful roles intervention: An evolutionary approach to

reducing bullying and increasing prosocial behavior. Journal of

Research on Adolescence,. doi:10.1111/jora.12243.

Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2008).

Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual

orientation among high school students: What influence do

parents and schools have? [Special issue]. School Psychology

Review, 37, 202–216.

Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., March-

banks, M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A

statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’

success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY:

Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Ferguson, C. J., Miguel, C. S., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007).

The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A

meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401–414.

doi:10.1177/0734016807311712.

Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Differential

effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and

unpopular bullies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychol-

ogy, 35(1), 44–50. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2013.10.004.

Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking,

risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and

adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology,

41, 625–635. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625.

Gina, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and

psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123,

1059–1065. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1215.

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., &

Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths:

Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data

elements. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and

Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S.

Department of Education.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Bullying

and school safety. Journal of Pediatrics, 152, 123–128. doi:10.

1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.045.

Gonsoulin, S., Zablocki, M., & Leone, P. E. (2012). Safe schools,

staff development, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher

Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher

Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35,

309–319. doi:10.1177/0888406412453470.

Graff, C., Stufft, D. (2011). Increasing visibility for LGBTQ students:

What schools can do to create inclusive classroom communities.

Current Issues in Education, 14(1). http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.

php/cieatasu/article/view/636.

Hagelskamp, C., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2013).

Improving classroom quality with the RULER approach to social

and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 51, 530–543. doi:10.1007/

s10464-013-9570-x.

Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2016). The role of school context in

implementing statewide anti-bullying policy and protecting

students. Educational Policy. doi:10.1177/0895904816637689.

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Schwab-Reese, L., Ranapurwala, S. I., Hertz,

M. F., & Ramirez, M. R. (2015). Associations between

antibullying policies and bullying in 25 states. JAMA Pediatrics,

169, e152411. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2411.

Hawley, P. H., Stump, K. N., & Ratliff, J. (2011). Sidestepping the

jingle fallacy. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.),

Bullying in North American schools (2nd ed., pp. 101–116). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Holben, D. M., & Zirkel, P. A. (2014). School bullying litigation: An

empirical analysis of the case law.Akron Law Review, 47, 299–328.

Holt, M. K., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M.,

DeGue, S., Matjasko, J. L., et al. (2015). Bullying and suicide

ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135,

496–509. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-1864.

Hymel, S., McClure, R., Miller, M., Shumka, E., & Trach, J. (2015).

Addressing school bullying: Insights from theories of group

processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37,

16–24. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.008.

Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on

school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70,

293–299. doi:10.1037/a0038928.

Jones, R. M., Somerville, L. H., Li, J., Ruberry, E. J., Powers, A.,

Mehta, N., et al. (2014). Adolescent-specific patterns of behavior

and neural activity during social reinforcement learning. Cog-

nitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 683–697.

doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0257-z.

Judge, A. M. (2012). ‘‘Sexting’’ among U.S. adolescents: Psycholog-

ical and legal perspectives. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20,

86–96. doi:10.3109/10673229.2012.677360.

Keipi, T., & Oksanen, A. (2014). Self-exploration, anonymity and

risks in the online setting: Analysis of narratives by 14–18-year

olds. Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 1097–1113. doi:10.1080/

13676261.2014.881988.

Kull, R. M., Kosciw, J. G., & Greytak, E. A. (2015). From statehouse

to schoolhouse: Anti-bullying policy efforts in U.S. States and

school districts. New York: GLSEN.

L. W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, 189 N.J. 381 (N.J. 2007).

Leff, S. S., Power, T. J., & Goldstein, A. B. (2004). Outcome

measures to assess the effectiveness of bullying-prevention

programs in the schools. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer

(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological

perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 269–293).

Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Limber, S. P. (2010). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying

Prevention Program: Lessons learned from the field. In D.

Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American

schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and

intervention (2nd ed., pp. 291–306). New York, NY: Routledge.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). From juvenile delinquency to

adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy and prevention.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Luna, B., Garver, K. E., Urban, T. A., Lazar, N. A., & Sweeney, J. A.

(2004). Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to

Adolescent Res Rev

123

adulthood. Child Development, 75, 1357–1372. doi:10.1111/j.

1467-8624.2004.00745.x.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In

P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and

emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–34).

New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

McDougall, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes

of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to

adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70,

300–310. doi:10.1037/app39174.

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Stults, B. J., Greenman, S. J., Bhati, A.

S., & Greenwald, M. A. (2014). The ‘‘true’’ juvenile offender:

Age effects and juvenile court sanctioning. Criminology, 52,

169–194. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12034.

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008).

How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A

meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology

Quarterly, 23, 26–42. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26.

Mills, K. L., Goddings, A. L., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., &

Blakemore, S. J. (2014). The developmental mismatch in

structural brain maturation during adolescence. Developmental

Neuroscience, 36, 147–160. doi:10.1159/000362328.

Milner, M. (2004). Freaks, geeks, and cool kids: American teenagers,

schools, and the culture of consumption. New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012).

Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national

study. Pediatrics, 129, 13–20. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-1730.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent

antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological

Review, 100, 674–701. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.674.

Monahan, K. C., VanDerhei, S., Bechtold, J., & Cauffman, E. (2014).

From the school yard to the squad car: School discipline,

truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43,

1110–1122. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0103-1.

Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The

school discipline consensus report: Strategies from the field to

keep students engaged in school and out of the juvenile justice

system. New York, NY: The Council of State Governments

Justice Center. http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/

2014/06/The_School_Discipline_Consensus_Report.pdf.

Nance, D., & Novy, F. A. (2011). The power of education in juvenile

justice. In A. R. Roberts & D. W. Springer (Eds.), Juvenile

delinquency and juvenile justice: Policies, programs and inter-

vention strategies. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Nelson, E., McClure, E., Monk, C., Zarahn, E., Leibenluft, E., Pine,

D., et al. (2003). Developmental differences in neuronal

engagement during implicit encoding of emotional faces: An

event-related fMRI study. Journal of Child Psychology, Psychi-

atry and Allied Disciplines, 44, 1015–1024. doi:10.1111/1469-

7610.00186.

Nickerson, A. B., Cornell, D. G., Smith, J. D., & Furlong, M. J.

(2013). School antibullying efforts: Advice for education

policymakers. Journal of School Violence, 12, 268–282.

doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.787366.

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in

bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0238.

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some impor-

tant challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9,

751–780. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yulie, A., McMaster, L.,

& Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying.

Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 376–384. doi:10.1002/ab.20136.

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-

analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effect on

bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review,

41(1), 47–65.

Policies & laws. (2015). http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.

html.

Poteat, V. P. (2008). Contextual and moderating effects of the peer

group climate on use of homophobic epithets [Special issue].

School Psychology Review, 37, 188–201.

Poteat, V. P., Aragon, S. R., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009).

Psychosocial concerns of sexual minority youth: Complexity and

caution in group differences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0014158.

Radliff, K. M., Wheaton, J. E., Robinson, K., & Morris, J. (2012).

Illuminating the relationship between bullying and substance use

among middle and high school youth. Addictive Behaviors, 37,

569–572. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.01.001.

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Van De

Schoot, R., Aleva, L., et al. (2013). Costs and benefits of

bullying in the context of the peer group: A three wave

longitudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,

41, 1217–1229. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9759-3.

Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Elbertson, N. A., &

Salovey, P. (2012). The interaction effects of program training,

dosage, and implementation quality on targeted student out-

comes for the RULER approach to social and emotional

learning. School Psychology Review, 41, 82–99.

Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Elbertson, N. A., &

Salovey, P. (2013). Improving the social and emotional climate

of classrooms: A Clustered randomized controlled trial testing

the RULER Approach. Prevention Science, 14, 77–87. doi:10.

1007/s11121-012-0305-2.

Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., Reyes, M. R., Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D.

R., & Salovey, P. (2012). Measuring emotional intelligence in

early adolescence with the MSCEITYV psychometric properties

and relationship with academic performance and psychosocial

functioning. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30,

344–366. doi:10.1177/0734282912449443.

Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2008). Well-being among same-sex- and

opposite-sex attracted youth at school [Special issue]. School

Psychology Review, 37, 174–187.

Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R.E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015).

Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/

NCJ 248036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice

Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubinfo.asp?pubid=

2015072.

Rodkin, P. C., Espelage, D. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2015). A relational

framework for understanding bullying: Developmental antece-

dents and outcomes. American Psychologist, 70, 311–321.

doi:10.1037/a0038658.

Rose, C. A., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying and

students with disabilities: The untold narrative. Focus on

Exceptional Children, 45, 1–10.

Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bibi, U. (2011). Prevention of school

bullying: The important role of autonomy-supportive teaching

and internalization of pro-social values. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 81, 654–666. doi:10.1348/2044-8279.

002003.

Ryan, W., & Smith, D. J. (2009). Antibullying programs in schools:

How effective are evaluation practices? Prevention Science, 10,

248–262. doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0128-y.

Sacco, D., Argudin, R., Maguire, J., & Tallon, K. (2010). Sexting:

Youth practices and legal implications. Cambridge, MA: Youth

and Media Policy Working Group Initiative, Berkman Center for

Internet & Society, Harvard University.

Adolescent Res Rev

123

Sacco, D., Silbaugh, K. B., Corredor, F., Casey, J., & Doherty, D.

(2012). An overview of state anti-bullying legislation and other

related laws (pp. 2013–2014). Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center

Research Publication, Report no.

Sacks, J., & Salem, R. S. (2009). Victims without legal remedies:

Why kids need schools to develop comprehensive anti-bullying

policies. Albany Law Review, 72, 147–190.

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. doi:10.1016/j.

avb.2009.08.007.

Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent development and the

regulation of youth crime. The Future of Children, 18, 15–33.

doi:10.1353/foc.0.0011.

Scruggs v. Meriden Board of Education, 2005 WL 2072312 (D. Conn

Aug. 26, 2005).

Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An

analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for

Youth Development, 92, 17–43. doi:10.1002/yd.23320019204.

Smith, A. R., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2014). Peers increase

adolescent risk taking even when the probabilities of negative

outcomes are known. Developmental Psychology, 50,

1564–1568.

Smith, A. R., Steinberg, L., Strang, N., & Chein, J. (2015). Age

differences in the impact of peers on adolescents’ and adults’

neural response to reward. Developmental Cognitive Neuro-

science, 11, 75–82. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2014.08.010.

Somerville, L. H. (2013). The teenage brain sensitivity to social

evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22,

121–127. doi:10.1177/0963721413476512.

Somerville, L. H., & Casey, B. J. (2010). Developmental neurobi-

ology of cognitive control and motivational systems. Current

Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 236–241. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.

01.006.

Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent

risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. doi:10.1016/j.

dr.2007.08.002.

Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice.

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 459–485. doi:10.1146/

annurev.clinpsy.032408.153603.

Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking.

Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 216–224. doi:10.1002/dev.

20445.

Steinberg, L. (2013). Does recent research on adolescent brain

development inform the mature minor doctrine? Journal of

Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 268–282.

Steinberg, L., Graham, S., O’Brien, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., &

Banich, M. (2009). Age differences in future orientation and

delay discounting. Child Development, 80, 28–44. doi:10.1111/j.

1467-8624.2008.01244.x.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., & Napolitano, S. A. (2009). Bullying

prevention and intervention: Realistic strategies for schools.

New York: Guilford.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010).

What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to

educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38–47.

doi:10.3102/0013/0013189X09357622.

Swearer, S. M., Turner, R. K., Givens, J. E., & Pollack, W. S. (2008).

‘‘You’re So Gay!’’ Do difference forms of bullying matter for

adolescent males? School Psychology Review, 37, 160–173.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventing

bullying: Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes.

Journal of Aggression, Conflict And Peace Research, 1(1),

13–24. doi:10.1108/17596599200900003.

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. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2010). Dear

colleague letter: Harassment and bullying. http://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Dear

colleague letter: Responding to bullying of students with

disabilities. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/col

leaguebullying-201410.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and

Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service

(USDOE). (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies.

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services (2013). Dear colleague letter: Bullying of

students with disabilities. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/

guid/idea/memosdcltrs/bullyingdcl-8-20-13.pdf.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention (2014). Statistical Briefing Book. http://www.

ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying?

A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review, 34, 327–343.

doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001.

Wald, J., & Losen, D. J. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-

prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development, 99,

9–15. doi:10.1002/yd.51.

Weaver, L. M., Brown, J. R., Weddle, D. B., & Aalsma, M. C. (2013).

A content analysis of protective factors within states’ antibul-

lying laws. Journal of School Violence, 12, 156–173. doi:10.

1080/15388220.2012.751537.

Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2015).

Declines in efficacy of anti- bullying programs among older

adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36–51. doi:10.1016/j.

appdev.2014.11.005.

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J.

(2004). The scientific base linking social and emotional learning

to school success. In J. Zins, R. Weissberg, M. Wang, & H.

J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and

emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 3–22).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Adolescent Res Rev

123