The national school climate survey the school-related experi-

A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis☆

1359-1789/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:

and psychosocial problems), as well as direct relations (e.g., family and peer) and the school environment (see Espelage & Horne, 2008 for a review). Only a handful of researchers (primarily in other coun-tries) have examined broader level factors that are associated with bullying behavior (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009), such as neighborhood environment and cultural influences. Because effective bullying pre-vention and intervention strategies require targeting the multiple contexts, understanding the ecological system levels that influence and/or inhibit bullying and peer victimization in school is imperative (Espelage & Horne, 2008; Garbarino & deLara, 2002; Limber, 2006).

The focus of this article is to examine factors associated with bul-lying and peer victimization within the context of Bronfenbrenner's most recent ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Although significant advances have been made in research on bullying and the importance of understanding the ecological factors influencing this behavior, studies conducted in the U.S. have been limited in scope, compared to research in other countries (Espelage & Horne, 2008). Therefore, much of the research reviewed in this study includes find-ings in other countries.

The term ‘bystander’ refers to a viewer, observer, witness, and passerby (Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2004). Past studies have pri-marily examined the bully–victim dyad. However, recent studies (e.g., Smith et al., 2004) suggest that most youth are neither ‘pure

Bystanders play multiple roles in bullying situations. Bystanders are characterized as standing around and watching fights without helping the victim. They enjoy watching fights, often encouraging the bully. They also help the bully by warning them if an adult is com-ing (Smith, Twemlow, & Hoover, 1999). On the contrary, some

J.S. Hong, D.L. Espelage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 311–322 313

and supportive of the victims, while boys believe that victims ‘de-

served what happened to them’ (Rigby, 1997). Although bystanders play a major role in bullying dynamics, there have relatively few stud-ies in the U.S. that focus specifically on the role of bystanders. To illus-trate, a recent meta-analysis on bullying prevention and intervention programs found that only three of the sixteen identified programs targeted and evaluated bystander behavior (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross,

2.1. Youth characteristics

in school. Haynie et al.'s (2001) study, which consisted of 4263 middle 2.1.1. Age

bullying victims than were older boys. Findings from these studies shed light on why middle school students are more likely than ele-mentary school students to experience bullying and perceive their school as unsafe, as a number of studies have shown (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001; Dinkes, Kemp, Baum, & Snyder, 2009; Kasen, Berenson, Cohen, & Johnson, 2004). Early adolescence is a critical pe-riod where youth explore their new social roles and their pursuit of status among their peer groups, which can motivate aggressive be-havior, especially for students making the transition from elementary to middle school (Pellegrini, 2002). On the contrary, a more recent re-search found that middle school students reported less physical, ver-bal, and relational victimization than elementary school students (Varjas, Henrich, & Meyers, 2009).

1.2.2. Nationwide 2.1.2. Gender

Scholars in recent years have also investigated the association be-tween gender and sexual bullying behavior and found that girls are at-risk of sexual bullying victimization (Pellegrini, 2002; Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2008). Hegemonic masculinity, a socially constructed form of masculinity, might explain males' tendency to engage in physically aggressive and sexually harassing behaviors (Bender, 2001). Shute et al. (2008) examined whether females' experiences in bullying victimization by boys were sexual in nature. The re-searchers found that victimization of girls by boys was an everyday occurrence, and the behaviors were overwhelmingly sexual in nature, which were verbal (indirect) rather than physical (direct). Feminist theorists have long asserted that because males are considered the more aggressive gender, most of the research studies on bullying found that boys exhibit higher levels of aggressive behavior than girls (Espelage et al., 2004). Feminist theorists also argue that male

(Zhou & Xiong, 2005). According to this theory, the process of assim-ilation is segmented into three categories of adaptation: 1) assimila-tion into the dominant (White) middle class, 2) preservation of cultural traditions and ethnic ties, and 3) downward assimilation (Peguero, 2009). In public schools where substance use, violence, and inter-racial/ethnic conflicts are rampant, opportunities for immi-grant youth and children of immigrants to succeed educationally are substantially diminished (Hirschman, 1996). These youth run the risk of dropping out of school, using alcohol and drugs, being exposed to delinquency, and becoming victims of violence (e.g., bullying) as they experience the process of assimilation (Peguero, 2009).

2.1.3. Race/ethnicity of LGBTQ youth reports that nearly 40% indicated experiencing phys-

A limited number of recent studies also investigated the associa-tion between race/ethnicity and bullying behavior in school (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, & Unger, 2004; Qin, Way, & Rana, 2008; Seals & Young, 2003). Bullying associ-ated with racial/ethnic minority status has been found to increase the likelihood of school adjustment and mental health problems (DuBois, Burk-Braxton, Swenson, Tevendale, & Hardesty, 2002). However, findings have been inconsistent (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007; Vervoort, Scholte, & Oberbeek, 2008). One study (Hanish & Guerra, 2000) compared the experiences in peer victimization of African American, Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic White elementary school children in urban schools. The re-searchers report that Whites are significantly at higher risk of victim-ization than African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos. Another study (Nansel et al., 2001) found that Hispanic/Latino youth reported mar-ginally higher involvement in bullying perpetration than Whites, while African Americans reported a higher level of peer victimization than youth of other races. On the contrary, Seals and Young's (2003) study found that race/ethnicity was not a significant predictor. Find-ings from these studies suggest that racial/ethnic minority status

ences in bullying at school. A limited number of research conducted in other countries have examined the association between obesity and peer victimization (Griffith, Wolke, Page, Horwood, & ALSPAC Study Team, 2005; Janssen, Craig, Boyce, & Pickett, 2004; Kukaswadia, 2009). One study conducted in Canadian schools with a representa-tive sample of 5749 boys and girls found that overweight and obese youth were more likely to bully other students than normal weight students (Janssen et al., 2004). Other studies also report that over-weight and obese youth of both genders are at increased risk of peer victimization in school (e.g., Kukaswadia, 2009). Griffith et al.'s (2005) cohort study of obese adolescents in British schools found that obese boys were significantly more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of bullying, while obese girls were victims. Findings from these studies indicate that obesity is a salient predictor for bul-lying behavior in school. To our knowledge, however, there have been no studies to date in the U.S. that examine the relation between health conditions, such as obesity and bullying.

2001; Saylor & Leach, 2009; Thompson, Whitney, & Smith, 1994). A growing body of empirical evidences found that children and adoles-cents with observable disabilities in segregated settings are more likely to be victimized by their peers in school than those with non-observable disabilities (see Rose, Monda-Amaya, & Espelage, 2011 for a review). Rose et al. (2011) purport that children and adolescents with disabilities experience victimization in school because they may be too passive or exhibit responses that may reinforce bullying behav-ior. Kaukiainen et al. (2002) on the other hand report that while learn-ing disability was not related to victimization, bullying perpetration was. The researchers theorize that children and adolescents with learn-ing disorders have difficulty in interpreting verbal and non-verbal com-munication and have poor social skills, which can hamper their ability to effectively negotiate peer relations. This can lead to the use of aggres-sive behavioral tendencies. However, Marini et al. (2001) note that re-ports of bullying incidents are difficult to identify for youth with disabilities since these youth are less likely to receive abuse awareness and response information, which makes detection and reporting of bul-lying a major concern.

(Duncan, 2004). Maltreated children may feel powerless, as they are un-able to protect themselves from harm's way (Finkelhor & Browne,

(Peterson & Ray, 2006; Woods & Wolke, 2004). In a sample of 1016 1985).

The association between parent–youth relationships and bullying also vary by race and ethnicity. One study (Spriggs et al., 2007) reported that lack of parent–youth communication and interactions were associated with bullying among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. However, the researcher also found that living with two biological parents was a protective factor against bullying behav-ior among White youth only.

protective factor against peer victimization, as noted by Demaray and Malecki (2003) who found that youth with low levels of peer ac-ceptance and social support are at increased risk of bullying victimi-zation. In addition to peer acceptance and social support, the quality of friendship is another major factor; positive friendships can serve as effective buffer against peer victimization (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005; Hugh-Jones & Smith, 1999; Schmidt & Bagwell, 2007). Rigby (2005) found in a sample of 400 elementary and middle school students in Australia that peers' negative attitudes toward the victims was significantly associated with bullying behavior, particu-larly among boys; however, friendships can provide protection against victimization. Likewise, Boulton et al.'s (1999) study also re-ports that youth without a best friend are at risk of being bullied by

2.2.4. School connectedness
Relationship between school connectedness (e.g., sense of belong-ing in school) and bullying behavior has also been examined (Glew et al., 2005; You, Furlong, Felix, Sharkey, & Tanigawa, 2008). Studies consistently find that youths' sense of school connectedness can re-duce the risk of negative outcomes, such as peer aggression, exposure to violence (Brookmeyer, Fanti, & Henrich, 2006), and substance mis-use (Wang, Matthew, Bellamy, & James, 2005). Youth with lower levels of school connectedness were significantly more likely to be in-volved in bullying and peer victimization (Glew et al., 2005; Skues, Cunningham, & Pokharel, 2005; You et al., 2004; Young, 2004). Life course theory might best explain school disconnect as a risk factor for bullying. This theory asserts that bonding to conventional people or institutions that adhere to law-abiding behaviors, would enable youth to refrain from delinquent and antisocial behaviors (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Youth who feel disconnected to institution are likely to engage in misbehaviors in school, such as bullying and peer

2.2.3. Peer relationships aggression.

Vervoort et al., 2008) found that peers play a significant role bullying victimization and perpetration.

Peer acceptance, popularity, and friendships are crucial for many adolescents (Espelage, 2002). Peer acceptance is recognized as a

2.3. Mesosystem from the study also suggest that identification with aggressive char-

acters on television and perceived realism of television violence are

2.4.2. Neighborhood environment
Because schools are embedded in neighborhoods, an unsafe neighborhood environment can influence bullying behavior due to inadequate adult supervision or negative peer influences. There are relatively few studies (Bacchini, Esposity, & Affuso, 2009; Espelage et al., 2000; Khoury-Kassabri, Benbenishty, Astor, & Zeira, 2004; Nansel, Overpeck, Haynie, Ruan, & Scheidt, 2003; Swearer & Doll, 2001; Wienke Totura et al., 2008) that have investigated how bully-ing behavior is influenced by experiences in environments outside of school, such as neighborhoods. Nevertheless, researchers consistent-ly found an association between neighborhood violence and bullying behavior. Youth residing in unsafe neighborhoods are likely to expe-rience bullying victimization (Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004), and these neighborhoods may reflect a larger social environment where bullying and violence occurs (Espelage et al., 2000). Researchers need to further examine the association between neighborhood en-vironment and bullying.

cials when teachers intervene in students' peer conflicts (Aceves, 2.5. Macrosystem Hinshaw, Mendoza-Denton, & Page-Gould, 2009).

2.5.1. Cultural norms and beliefs
‘Culture’ is a broad and complex phenomenon, conceptualized in many different ways by social scientists (Bond, 2004). As noted by Roffey (2000), culture influences the way people behave. Within the context of culture, aggressive behavior may be constructed for the purpose of coercion which one exercises against another. Although there has been a vast amount of literature on aggressive behaviors within certain cultures, there have been few cross-cultural studies, which conceptualizes and measures aggression so that comparisons across different cultures can be meaningful (Bond, 2004).

Relatively few scholars in the U.S. have found that students' cul-turally prescribed pro-social attitudes and beliefs toward violence contribute to bullying behavior (Bosworth et al., 1999; McConville & Cornell, 2003). Sociological theorists assert that school norms espe-cially in developed countries help perpetuate inequality, alienation,

3.1. Bullying prevention and intervention programs

More specifically, to date, there have been three meta-analyses conducted in the last six years to evaluate what is occurring in school-based bullying prevention programs. For the most part, these programs focus on shifting the school climate such that bullying is not tolerated, and providing students with knowledge about bullying, the consequences of such behavior for all involved, and the impor-tance of being an effective defender or bystander for targeted peers. Regrettably, many of these programs have not considered other rele-vant ecological levels that have profound impact on school climate, such as neighborhood, cultural norms and beliefs, and religion. Con-sequently, results of these meta-analyses suggest that these programs have a limited impact on reducing bullying in schools. First, Smith et al. (2004) evaluated 14 whole-school anti-bullying programs and found small effects. These programs were all based on the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP; Olweus, 1993), which has yet to demonstrate consistent efficacy within U.S. schools (as measured by positive findings published in peer-reviewed journals). Results yielded moderate effect sizes on self-reported victimization that stu-dents experienced from bullies (e.g., being teased, called names, shoved or hit) and small to negligible effects on self-reported bullying perpetration (e.g., teasing, name-calling, hitting or pushing).

With an eye toward the future, it is important to note that these meta-analyses indicate that programs that include ecologically-based components will likely show promising results even with the U.S. con-text, such as: 1) parent training/meetings, 2) improved playground su-pervision, 3) classroom management, 4) teaching training, 5) classroom rules, 6) whole-school bullying policy, and 7) cooperative group work. Because bullying is maintained by social and tangible reinforcers, effec-tive prevention must be predicated in peer- and school-level interven-tions that shift power dynamics and the value placed on contingencies

3. Discussion (Whitted & Dupper, 2005). A social–ecological approach dictates that

Researchers over the past few decades have made tremendous strides in enhancing our understanding of bullying and aggressive be-haviors among children and adolescents in school.

J.S. Hong, D.L. Espelage / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 311–322 319

Aceves, M. J., Hinshaw, S. P., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Page-Gould, E. (2009). Seek help from teachers or fight back? Student perceptions of teachers' actions during con-flicts and responses to peer victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 145, 784–789.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and proso-cial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Sci-ence, 12, 353–359.

Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in school and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713–732.

Ballard, M., Argus, T., & Remley, T. P., Jr. (1999). Bullying and school violence: A pro- posed prevention program. NASSP Bulletin, 83, 38–47.

Baumeister, A. L., Storch, E. A., & Geffken, G. R. (2008). Peer victimization in children with learning disabilities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, 11–23.

Bender, G. (2001). Resisting dominance? The study of a marginalized masculinity and its construction within high school walls. In J. Burstyn, G. Bender, R. Casella, H.

Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Jour-nal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 701–712.

Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression: From context to coercion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 62–78.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

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

Carlson, K. T. (2006). Poverty and youth violence exposure: Experiences in rural com- munities. Children and Schools, 28, 87–96.

Abbotts, J. E., Williams, R. G. A., Sweeting, H. N., & West, P. B. (2004). Is going to church good or bad for you? Denomination, attendance and mental health of children in West Scotland. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 645–656.

David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents: An emerging public and health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S1–S5. Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance

Goldstein, S. E., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 641–654. Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379–400.

Halliday-Boykins, C. A., & Graham, S. (2001). At both ends of the gun: Testing the rela-tionship between community violence exposure and youth violent behavior. Jour-nal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 383–402.

ucation and Justice. Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in pre-DuBois, D. L., Burk-Braxton, C., Swenson, L. P., Tevendale, H. D., & Hardesty, J. L. (2002). dicting children's victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psycholo- Race and gender influences on adjustment in early adolescence: Investigation of an gy, 28, 201–223.

Hetherington, E. M., & Elmore, A. M. (2003). Risk and resilience in children coping with their parents' divorce and remarriage. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnera-bility: Adaption in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 182–212). New York:

child abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child Maltreatment, 4, Cambridge University.

sus: From generational comparisons to the process of “Becoming American”. In A. Portes (Ed.), Second generation (pp. 54–81). New York: Russell Sage.

Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully–victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984–994.

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bul-lying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78,

Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent vic- tims in the Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5–16.

mographic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, Humphrey, J. L., Storch, E. A., & Geffken, G. R. (2007). Peer victimization in children with

411–426. attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Health Care, 11, 248–260.

search based explanations to empirically based solutions. In S. Brown, & R. Lent 1187–1194.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 588–606). (4th edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bul- What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, lying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey. Brit- 32, 365–383. ish Medical Journal, 319, 348–351.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Coolahan, K., & Weiss, A. (1997). Resiliency partnership-directed re-search: Enhancing the social competencies of preschool victims of physical abuse by developing peer resources and community strengths. In D. Cicchetti, & Toth (Eds.), Developmental perspective on trauma: Theory, research and intervention (pp. 463–490). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Grief, J. L. (2003). Reaching an American consensus: Reactions to the special issue on school bullying. School Psychology Review, 32,

Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). The effects of school climate on changes in aggressive and other behaviors related to bullying. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social–ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 187–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Vauras, M., Maki, H., et al.

Kosciw, J. G. (2004). The 2003 National School Climate Survey: The school-related experi-

456–470. ences of our nation's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. New York: Gay,

Kumpulainen, K., Rasanen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric disorders and the use of mental health services among children involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior,

Georgiou, S. N. (2009). Personal and maternal parameters of peer violence at school. 27, 102–110.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psycho-social adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pe-diatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031.

prevention with children of divorce and remarriage. In J. Sandoval (Ed.), Handbook of crisis counseling, intervention, and prevention in the schools (pp. 83–104). (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Korean middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 152–176. al, 26, 147–161.

Leff, S. S. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Considerations and future Rigby, R., & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adolescent students collaborating with

McCloskey, L. A., & Lichter, E. L. (2003). The contribution of marital violence to adolescent aggression across different relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 390–412. McCloskey, L. A., & Stuewig, J. (2001). The quality of peer relationships among children exposed to family violence. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 83–96.

Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term correlates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 33–46.

havior in middle school students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: What school personnel, other pro-

11, 179–187. fessionals, and parents can do. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling

Salmivalli, C. (2009). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Be-

schools through critical pedagogy. McGill Journal of Education, 43, 33–48. havior, 15, 112–120.

Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1–15.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-

olescent Medicine, 157, 348–353.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.

2094–2100. Schwartz, D., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999).

National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (2001). Bullying widespread Early behavior problems as a predictor of later peer group victimization: Moderators

Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among schoolchildren: Intervention and prevention. In R.

D. Peters, R. J. McMahon, & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp. 100–125). London: Sage Publications.

Skues, J. L., Cunningham, E. G., & Pokharel, T. (2005). The influence of bullying behav-iours on sense of school connectedness, motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 15, 17–26.

Smith, P. K., Madsen, K. C., & Moody, J. C. (1999). What causes the age decline in reports

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School

ican student victimization. Youth and Society, 41, 186–208. Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Charach, A., & Ziegler, S. (1993). A school-based anti-bullying

Smith, J., Twemlow, S. W., & Hoover, D. H. (1999). Bullies, victims and bystanders: A method of in-school intervention and possible parental contributions. Child Psychi-atry and Human Development, 30, 29–37.

alence, and effects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148–168. Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in school: An ecological framework. Journal of Petts, R. J. (2009). Fathers' religious involvement and early childhood behavior (Fragile Emotional Abuse, 2, 7–23.

Families Working Paper 2009-22-FF). Muncie, IN: Author.

Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A social–ecological framework of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social–ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 1–12). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Thompson, D., Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bullying of children with special needs in mainstream schools. Support for Learning, 9, 103–106.

spective on the bully–victim–bystander relationship. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14–S21.

60, 296–313. Wong, D. S. W. (2004). School bullying and tackling strategies in Hong Kong. Interna-

159–176. ruary 14, 2010, from

Vervoort, M. H., Scholte, R. H. J., & Oberbeek, G. (2008). Bullying and victimization

Walton, G. (2005). “Bullying widespread”: A critical analysis of research and public dis- course on bullying. Journal of School Violence, 4, 91–118.

Wang, M. Q., Matthew, R. F., Bellamy, N., & James, S. (2005). A structural model of sub-stance use pathway among minority youth. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29,

Wienke Totura, C. M., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R., Divine, K. P.,

Zimmerman, F. J., Glew, G. M., Christakis, D. A., & Katon, W. (2005). Early cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and television watching as predictors of subse-quent bullying among grade-school children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent