American Journal of Orthopsychiatry  2010 American Orthopsychiatric Association

2010, Vol. 80, No. 1, 124–134 DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x

Bullying in School: Evaluation and Dissemination

of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
Dan Olweus Susan P. Limber
University of Bergen Clemson University

The nature and extent of bullying among school children is discussed, and recent attention
to the phenomenon by researchers, the media, and policy makers is noted. The Olweus
Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) is a comprehensive, school-wide program that was
designed to reduce bullying and achieve better peer relations among students in elemen-
tary, middle, and junior high school grades. Several large-scale studies from Norway are
reviewed, which provide compelling evidence of the program’s effectiveness in Norwegian
schools. Studies that have evaluated the OBPP in diverse settings in the United States
have not been uniformly consistent, but they have shown that the OBPP has had a posi-
tive impact on students’ self-reported involvement in bullying and antisocial behavior.
Efforts to disseminate the OBPP in Norway and the United States are discussed.

For 2 years, Johnny, a quiet 13-year-old, was a human plaything for
some of his classmates. The teenagers badgered Johnny for money,
forced him to swallow weeds and drink milk mixed with detergent,
beat him up in the rest room and tied a string around his neck, lead-
ing him around as a ‘‘pet.’’ When Johnny’s torturers were interro-
gated about the bullying, they said they pursued their victim because
it was fun. (newspaper clipping cited in Olweus, 1993a, p. 7)
This short newspaper clipping gives a dismal picture of the
cruelty children and youth can show toward one another under
certain conditions. It demonstrates what a nightmare that life at
school can be for a victimized student—often without the par-
ents or the teachers knowing what the victim is experiencing.
Bullying among schoolchildren is a very old phenomenon.
Though many are acquainted with the problem, it was not until
fairly recently (the early 1970s) that the phenomenon was made
the object of more systematic research (Olweus, 1973, 1978).
For a number of years, these efforts were largely confined to
Scandinavia. In the late 1980s and the 1990s, however, bullying
among school children also attracted attention in several other
countries, including Japan, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Can-
ada, the United States, and Australia (for references, see Smith
& Brain, 2000). In the past decade, there has been an explosion
of interest in bullying, in terms of research, intervention, and
attention by the media and policy makers (e.g., Espelage &
This article is based on papers presented in March–April 2009 at the
Greenville Family Symposium, at which the first author delivered an
invited lecture in commemoration of the establishment of an endowed
distinguished professorship in his honor in the Institute on Family and
Neighborhood Life at Clemson University. The second author, who was
appointed as the first holder of the chair, also presented an invited ple-
nary lecture.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan
P. Limber, Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life, Clemson
University, 158 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0132.
Electronic mail may be sent to slimber@clemson.edu.
Swearer, 2004; Juvonen & Graham, 2001; Smith, Pepler, &
Rigby, 2004; Smith et al., 1999; Stassen Berger, 2007). By way
of illustration, a search of the PsycINFO database (using the
term bully) revealed only four books, journal articles, chapters,
or dissertations on the topic of bullying in 1988. By 2001, there
were 123, and there have been more than 150 published each
year since 2004.
In the United States, this increased attention has been fueled
by some highly publicized school shootings (most notably those
at Columbine High School in 1999) in which the tragic events
have been linked to bully ⁄ victim problems among the students
involved (Anderson et al., 2001; Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, &
Modzeleski, 2002). State-level legislative attention to bullying
has also been dramatic post-Columbine. In 1999, there were no
state laws addressing bullying among students; within 3 years,
there were 15. As of this writing, there are 41.
In this article, we will provide a brief overview of the phe-
nomenon of bullying, including its definition, nature, and
prevalence. Our main focus, however, will be on the inter-
vention work against bully ⁄ victim problems that has been
conducted with the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
(OBPP) in Norway over the past 25 years and more recently
in the United States. That review includes an overview of
the program, its research base, and efforts to disseminate the
model.
The Nature and Prevalence of Bullying
In the mid-1980s, the first author (Olweus, 1986, 1993a)
developed the following definition of bullying: ‘‘A student is
being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly
and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more
other students’’ (Olweus, 1993a. p. 9). Negative actions can be
carried out by physical contact, by words, or in other ways,
such as gestures or intentional exclusion from a group.

124
 BULLYING IN SCHOOL
Expressed in more everyday language, bullying can be charac-
terized as intentional, repeated, negative (unpleasant or hurtful)
behavior by one or more persons directed against a person who
has difficulty defending himself or herself. According to this def-
inition, which has gained considerable acceptance among
researchers and practitioners alike (Smith & Brain, 2000), the
phenomenon of bullying can thus be described as aggressive
behavior or intentional harm doing that is carried out repeat-
edly and over time in an interpersonal relationship characterized
by an actual or perceived imbalance of power or strength.
It is worth noting that much bullying occurs without apparent
provocation on the part of the person being targeted. This defi-
nition makes clear that bullying can be considered a form of
abuse, and sometimes the term peer abuse is used as a label of
the phenomenon. What sets bullying apart from other forms of
abuse, such as child abuse and domestic violence, is the context
in which it occurs and the relationship of the parties involved.
Prevalence of Bullying
The earliest estimates of bullying prevalence were based on
surveys of more than 130,000 Norwegian students conducted in
1983, using an early version of the Olweus Bully ⁄ Victim Ques-
tionnaire (Olweus, 1986, 1996, 2010; Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
Olweus found that that 15% of the students in elementary and
lower secondary schools (Grades 3–10, roughly corresponding
to ages 8 through 16) in Norway were involved in bully ⁄ victim
problems with some regularity—either as bullies only, victims
only, or bully ⁄ victims (Olweus, 1993a). This percentage repre-
sented one student out of seven. Approximately 9% were vic-
tims of bullying, 6%–7% bullied other students, and 1.5% of
the students were both victim and bully (approximately 17% of
the victims). A large-scale survey in 2001 (Olweus, 1996, 2002)
revealed two disturbing trends: (a) the percentage of victimized
Figure 1. Bullying circle.
125
students (bullied ‘‘two or three times a month’’ or more often)
had increased by approximately 50% since 1983, and (b) the
percentage of students who were involved in the most serious
forms of bullying problems (i.e., bullying ⁄ being bullied at least
once per week) had increased by 65%.
Using the two global questions of the Olweus questionnaire, a
recent large-scale survey of 11- to 15-year-olds in 40 countries
(Craig et al., 2009) revealed that 26% of adolescents had been
involved in bullying with some regularity (‘‘two to three times a
month’’ or more often)—10.7% as ‘‘bullies only,’’ 12.6% as
‘‘victims only,’’ and 3.6% as ‘‘bully ⁄ victims.’’ Among American
youth in this sample, 22.2% of boys and 16.6% of girls reported
regular involvement in bullying. Notably, there were dramatic
differences in bullying rates across the 40 countries surveyed
(e.g., a fivefold difference was observed between countries in the
prevalence of bullying among boys, and a sevenfold difference
was observed for girls’ involvement in bullying). These differ-
ences probably reflect social and cultural differences in bullying
itself (or the interpretation of the term) and in the implementa-
tion of policies and programs to address bullying (Craig et al.,
2009).
A Brief Note About the Origins of Bullying
Problems
Analyses of the causes of bully ⁄ victim problems must be pur-
sued on several different levels. Individual personality character-
istics or typical reaction patterns, in combination with physical
strength or weakness in the case of boys, are important for the
development of these problems in individual students. At the
same time, environmental factors such as the attitudes, routines,
and behavior of adults in the school environment play a major
role in determining the extent to which the problems will mani-
fest themselves in a classroom or a school.
126 OLWEUS AND LIMBER
Furthermore, most bullying incidents directly or indirectly
involve children and youth other than the victimized child and
his or her perpetrators, as depicted in the Bullying Circle in
Figure 1 (Olweus, 2001a, 2001b). Consequently, the behavior
and attitudes of relevant peers, as manifested in group mecha-
nisms and processes, are also important to consider.
Bullying as an Issue of Human Rights
Several decades of research confirm that children and adoles-
cents who are exposed to bullying are likely to be seriously
affected by this experience in a number of ways. Bullied children
tend to suffer from elevated levels of depression, anxiety, poor
self-esteem, social isolation, psychosomatic problems, and sui-
cidal ideation (e.g., Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Hawker & Boul-
ton, 2000; Juvonen & Graham, 2001; Olweus, 1978, 1993a;
Stassen Berger, 2007). Recent research shows that victimized
children may develop even more severe mental health problems
such as psychotic symptoms (Schreier et al., 2009). Many of the
problems incurred in childhood or adolescence are likely to con-
tinue into young or middle adulthood (e.g., Fosse, 2006; Olw-
eus, 1993b).
Against this background and from the perspective of interna-
tional human rights law (e.g., Convention on the Rights of the
Child [CRC], 1989; Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948), it is natural to argue that is a fundamental human right
for a child to be safe in school and to be spared the oppression
and repeated humiliation implied in bullying. As stated in the
CRC (1989), governments must ‘‘take all appropriate legislative,
administrative, social, and educational means to protect the
child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or
abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploita-
tion . . . while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s), or any
person who has the care of the child’’ (art. 19, § 1, emphasis
added).
A number of studies also indicate that children who bully
others are at considerable risk of engaging in other troubling,
antisocial and violent behavior both in the short and long term
(Sourander et al., 2007, and references above). Accordingly,
even though the primary reason for initiating systematic anti-
bullying work in school is consideration of bullied students, it
also is important to counteract bullying for the sake of the per-
petrators.
The OBPP: Development and Initial Evaluation
In 1983, after three adolescent boys in Norway committed sui-
cide, as a likely consequence of severe bullying by peers, the Nor-
wegian Ministry of Education initiated a national campaign
against bullying in schools. What has later become known as the
OBPP was developed and initially evaluated within this context.
The OBPP was initially implemented in the First Bergen Pro-
ject Against Bullying, a longitudinal study that followed
approximately 2,500 school children over a period of 2.5 years,
from 1983 to 1985. Because the project was part of a national
campaign, it was not possible to conduct an experimental study
with schools or classes randomly assigned to treatment and con-
trol conditions. Instead, an extended selection cohorts design
was utilized in which same-aged students from the same schools
were compared across three points in time (Olweus, 1991, 1997,
2005; Olweus & Alsaker, 1991). At Time 1, participants
belonged to 112 classes in Grades 5–8 from 28 elementary and
14 junior high schools in Bergen, Norway.
The empirical evaluation results revealed marked reductions
in student self-reports of bully ⁄ victim problems. In the 1983–
1984 evaluation, the relative reduction for being bullied was
62.0% (from 10.0% to 3.8%) and 33.0% for bullying other
students (from 7.6% to 5.1%) after 8 months of intervention.
Results for the 1983–1985 evaluation (after 20 months of
intervention) revealed reductions of 64.0% in rates of being
bullied (from 10.0% to 3.6%) and reductions of 52.6% (from
7.6% to 3.6%) in rates of bullying others (Olweus, 1991,
1997). Similar results were obtained for peer rating variables
and teacher ratings of bully ⁄ victim problems at the classroom
level.
A clear dosage–response relationship also was observed. The
classes in which essential components of the program had been
implemented experienced greater reductions in bullying prob-
lems (Olweus & Alsaker, 1991; Olweus & Kallestad, in press).
Finally, the study revealed reductions in self-reports of gen-
eral antisocial behavior (vandalism, theft, and truancy) and
improvements in the social climate of the class, including
improvements in students’ satisfaction with school life,
improved order and discipline, more positive social relation-
ships, and a more positive attitude toward school. A number of
possible alternative explanations of the positive findings were
carefully considered and could be safely ruled out or treated as
highly unlikely (Olweus, 1991).
Brief Description of the OBPP
The primary goals of the OBPP are to reduce existing bully-
ing problems among students at school, prevent the develop-
ment of new bullying problems, and achieve better peer
relations at school (Olweus, 1993a; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic,
1999; Olweus et al., 2007). These goals are pursued through a
restructuring of the school environment. This restructuring is
intended to reduce opportunities and rewards for engaging in
bullying and to build a sense of community among students and
adults within the school environment (Olweus, 1993a, 2001b;
Olweus et al., 2007).
The OBPP is based on four key principles. Adults at school
(and ideally, at home) should (a) show warmth and positive
interest in their students; (b) set firm limits to unacceptable
behavior; (c) use consistent nonphysical, nonhostile negative
consequences when rules are broken; and (d) function as
authorities and positive role models (Olweus, 1993a, 2001b;
Olweus et al., 2007). These principles have been translated into
a number of specific interventions at four levels: the school, the
classroom, the individual, and, in some contexts, the commu-
nity.
Although these principles and the components of the OBPP
have remained largely unchanged, ongoing research and experi-
ence in the field have led to some adaptations of the program to
help ensure that it fits different cultural contexts. Table 1 sum-
marizes the components of the OBPP, as implemented in the
United States. (For a description of these components, see Olw-
eus & Limber, 2007, 2010.)
 BULLYING IN SCHOOL 127

Table 1. Components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

School-level components
Establish a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee (BPCC)
Conduct trainings for the BPCC and all staff
Administer the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Grades 3–12)
Hold staff discussion group meetings
Introduce the school rules against bullying
Review and refine the school’s supervisory system
Hold a school-wide kick-off event to launch the program
Involve parents
Classroom-level components
Post and enforce school-wide rules against bullying
Hold regular (weekly) class meetings to discuss bullying and related
topics
Hold class-level meetings with students’ parents
Individual-level components
Supervise students’ activities
Ensure that all staff intervene on the spot when bullying is observed
Figure 2. Percentage bullied students 2001–2003. Elementary Grades
Meet with students involved in bullying (separately for those who are
4–7.
bullied and who bully)
Meet with parents of involved students
Develop individual intervention plans for involved students, as needed
Community-level components evaluation projects carried out between 2001 and 2003 in
Involve community members on the Bullying Prevention connection with a new national initiative. In 2000, the Depart-
Coordinating Committee ment of Education and Research and the Department of Chil-
Develop school–community partnerships to support the school’s
dren and Family Affairs decided to offer the OBPP to all
program
Help to spread antibullying messages and principles of best practice in
Norwegian comprehensive schools (Grades 1–10) over a period
the community of several years.
From an evaluation perspective, this new national initiative
has provided a unique opportunity to examine the effects of
the OBPP on very large samples of students and schools
Subsequent Evaluations of the OBPP
under ordinary conditions (i.e., without special efforts in terms
of staff input or other resources) in the context of large-scale
The Outcome Evaluations
dissemination (Flay et al., 2005). All of the training of instruc-
Subsequent to the initial evaluation of the OBPP in the First tors was undertaken by specially trained colleagues from the
Bergen Project, six follow-up outcome evaluations involving Olweus Group Against Bullying and Antisocial Behavior at
more than 20,000 students from more than 150 schools have the Research Center for Health Promotion, University of
been conducted in Norway. All of these evaluations have used Bergen.
dichotomized or graded self-report items or scales from the Data were analyzed using the extended selection cohorts
Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996, 2007; Solberg & design, in which developmental or maturational effects are con-
Olweus, 2003) as dependent variables. As argued in another trolled (Olweus, 2005). Key results are shown in Figures 2 and
context (Olweus, 2010), data from a well-constructed question- 3. The upper curve of Figure 2 portrays the baseline percentages
naire are often the best indicator of change in levels of bullying of bullied students in Grades 4 through 7 from five different
in intervention studies. cohorts of schools that conducted their introductory surveys in
The program has also been evaluated in several diverse the period from October 2001 to October 2003. To date, we
communities in the United States, including rural South Car- have primarily focused our evaluation analyses on the first three
olina (Limber, Nation, Tracy, Melton, & Flerx, 2004; Melton of these cohorts.
et al., 1998), inner-city Philadelphia (Black & Jackson, 2007), The percentages of students (in the same grades and schools)
suburban Chula Vista, California (Pagliocca, Limber, & Ha- who reported being bullied 1 year later, when the schools had
shima, 2007), and Washington state (Bauer, Lozano, & Riv- used the OBPP for approximately 8 months, are shown in the
ara, 2007). Evaluations in other European countries are also lower curve of Figure 2. The two data points from each cohort
underway. of schools are connected with an arrow.
The percentage of bullied students in the first cohort of schools
(n = 8,388 students from 56 schools) was 15.2% while at follow-
Research-Based Evaluations of the OBPP in
up 1 year later (n = 8,299) this percentage was 10.2%, a relative
Norway 2001–2003
reduction of 33%. The relative reductions for the two consecutive
Although two Norwegian evaluation projects with positive cohorts of schools were approximately 34%, from 14.0%
results were conducted in the late 1990s (the New Bergen Project (n = 4,083 students from 46 schools) to 9.2% (n = 4,089) for
and the First Oslo Project; see Olweus & Limber, 2010), our the second cohort, and from 13.2% (n = 8,238 students from 58
focus here will be on the three large-scale implementation and schools) to 8.7% (n = 8,483) for the third cohort.
128 OLWEUS AND LIMBER
Figure 3. Percentage bullying students 2001–2003. Elementary Grades
4–7.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the pattern of results for bullying
other students is very similar to what was reported for being
bullied, but at a lower level. The relative reductions for this
variable for the three cohorts of schools were 37% (from 5.7%
to 3.6%), 48% (from 5.9% to 3.1%), and 49% (from 5.1% to
2.6%), respectively. Similar results were obtained when the data
were analyzed separately for the two genders, the four grades,
and when an even stricter criterion (‘‘about once a week’’ or
more often) was used in classifying students as being bullied or
bullying other students. Similar positive results were also
obtained with regard to summary scales of all different forms of
bullying and of special subscales, such as direct bullying and
indirect ⁄ relational bullying (social isolation and rumor spread-
ing). All of these findings were statistically highly significant.
Moreover, as explained elsewhere in detail (Olweus, 2005; Olw-
eus & Limber, 2010), because of the structure of the design with
different cohorts of schools entering the program at different
time points, one can safely rule out the possibility that the posi-
tive results were a consequence of ‘‘historical events,’’ such as
special media attention or general time trends rather than effects
of the OBPP.
For 14 of the 24 Oslo schools from the first cohort, we have
data for five assessments, from October 2001 to October 2006,
involving approximately 3,000 students per assessment. The ini-
tial rate of being bullied was 14.0%, which decreased to 9.8%
after 1 year of intervention and to 8.4% by 2006. This change
represents a 40% relative reduction from the baseline value.
Similarly, the rate of bullying others decreased from 5.5% in
2001, to 2.8% in 2002, and to 2.7% in 2006, a relative reduction
of 50.9%.
These results are particularly significant because it has been
shown (e.g., Beelman, Pfingsten, & Lösel, 1994) that many pro-
gram effects are short-lived and are found to be considerably
reduced when even slightly longer term effects have been exam-
ined. The reported results show that the effects of the OBPP can
be long-lasting and suggest that the intervention schools had
been able to change their ‘‘culture’’ and ability to counteract
bullying in a more permanent way.
Norwegian Evaluation Studies Involving
Students in Grades 8–10
Implementation of the OBPP in schools with students in
Grades 4 through 7 has consistently produced positive
results, a record that appears to be relatively unique in an
international perspective (see Smith et al., 2004; Ttofi & Far-
rington, 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008). Positive
results have also been obtained with students from junior
high lower secondary school grades (8–10) in Norway,
although less consistently and sometimes with weaker effects.
For example, in the First Oslo Project, there was a 32%
reduction among ninth graders in the percentage of bullied
students between Time 1 and Time 2 (Olweus & Limber,
2010). Similarly, in the First Bergen Project, positive results
were obtained for the junior high school cohort (Grade 8)
after 8 and 20 months of intervention, respectively (see, e.g.,
Olweus, 1991, 1997, where the designation Grade 7 corre-
sponds to Grade 8 in the United States and today’s Norwe-
gian school system).
In the context of the New National Initiative, results for these
grades at the 1-year follow-up (Time 2) have been more vari-
able, sometimes producing positive results, at other times show-
ing no or small differences between the Time 1 and Time 2
assessments. However, in a recent study following 14 schools
with Grades 8 and 9 over a 2-year period from 2001 to 2003,
the results at Time 3, after 20 months of intervention, showed a
relative reduction of 27.5% in the percentage of bullied stu-
dents. Similar results were obtained for bullying other students,
with a relative reduction of 31.1%. In contrast, the reductions
from Time 1 to Time 2 were quite small for both variables.
Although these results are based on a relatively small number of
schools, they suggest that it may take longer time to produce
positive results in Grades 8–10 than in lower grades (see also
Smith & Sharp, 1994; Stevens, de Bourdeaudhuij, & Van Oost,
2000).
Outcome Studies in the United States
Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the OBPP
in diverse elementary and middle school populations in the Uni-
ted States. Findings will be summarized briefly.
South Carolina. The first evaluation of the OBPP in the
United States took place in the mid-1990s and involved elemen-
tary and middle schools in six primarily rural school districts in
South Carolina (Limber et al., 2004; Melton et al., 1998; Olweus
& Limber, 2010). The sample was largely African American
(school districts ranged from 46% to 95% African American)
and of low socioeconomic status.
After 7 months of program implementation, significant
Time · Group (intervention vs. comparison) interactions were
documented for several indices of bullying others. For example,
in intervention schools, there was a 16% decrease in the per-
centages of students who indicated they had bullied others sev-
eral times or more often within the school term, whereas there
was a 12% increase in rates of bullying among students in com-
parison schools, resulting in an overall relative reduction of
approximately 28%.
 BULLYING IN SCHOOL
Similarly, there was an increase over time in the frequency
of self-reported antisocial behavior among students in compari-
son schools. For the intervention students, there was either no
increase or a slower rate of increase with regard to measures
of general delinquency, vandalism, school misbehavior, and
sanctions for school misbehavior. Thus, the program appeared
to slow the age-related rate of increase in students’ involve-
ment in antisocial behavior. There were no significant changes
in the frequency with which students reported being bullied.
The program continued one additional year, but it unfortu-
nately was implemented with such low degrees of fidelity that
it no longer could be considered a faithful implementation of
the model.
Pennsylvania. Black and Jackson (2007) evaluated the
effectiveness of the OBPP in six large public elementary and
middle schools in inner-city Philadelphia over 4 years of imple-
mentation. Researchers used an observational measure to assess
Bullying Incident Density (a checklist of bullying behaviors that
included physical, verbal, and emotional bullying). Observations
of elementary students took place at recess, while observations
of middle school students took place during lunch. Bullying
Incident Density decreased 45% over the course of 4 years—
from 65 incidents at baseline to 36 incidents per 100 student
hours. Unfortunately, because of substantial attrition in the
number of students responding to the Olweus Bully ⁄ Victim
Questionnaire, conclusions about possible changes in self-
reports cannot be drawn.
Washington. Bauer et al. (2007) evaluated the OBPP
using a nonrandomized controlled study with 10 middle schools
(7 intervention, 3 control). Using the Olweus Bully ⁄ Victim
Questionnaire, researchers found significant program effects for
relational victimization and physical victimization among White
students. However, they failed to find similar program effects
for students of other races and ethnicities. In addition, they
observed overall positive program effects with regard to stu-
dents’ perceptions that other students actively intervened in bul-
lying incidents.
California. Pagliocca et al. (2007) evaluated the effective-
ness of the OBPP in three elementary schools in a suburban
community in southern California. The researchers used a selec-
tion cohorts design to assess program effects over a 3-year per-
iod, based on anonymous surveys of students (using the Olweus
Bully ⁄ Victim Questionnaire), teachers, and parents. Self-reports
of being bullied decreased 21% after 1 year and 14% after
2 years; self-reports of bullying others decreased 8% after 1 year
and 17% after 2 years.
Other findings included increases in bullied students’ propen-
sities to tell a teacher about their bullying (Time 1 vs. Time 3),
students’ perceptions that teachers and other adults try to stop
bullying (Time 1 vs. Time 2), teachers’ perceptions that there
were clear rules about bullying (Time 1 and Time 3), and teach-
ers’ beliefs that they knew how to respond to bullying (78%
increase between Time 1 and Time 3). There also were marked
increases in teachers’ perceptions that the school’s bullying poli-
cies had been communicated clearly to students, parents, teach-
ers, and nonteaching staff (by 72%–97%).
129
Summary of Evaluations and Next Steps
A number of large-scale studies from Norway provide com-
pelling evidence of the program’s effectiveness in Norwegian
schools. Studies that have evaluated the OBPP in diverse set-
tings in the United States have not been uniformly consistent.
However, the thrust of the findings in the U.S. studies has been
that the OBPP has had a positive impact on students’ self-
reported bullying behavior (Limber et al., 2004; Melton et al.,
1998), antisocial involvement (Limber et al., 2004), being bullied
(Bauer et al., 2007, for White children), and propensities to
report victimization to adults (Pagliocca et al., 2007). Observa-
tional techniques showed marked decreases in relational and
physical bullying (Black & Jackson, 2007). Additional outcome
studies of the OBPP are underway in the United States and
other countries, which will provide useful information about the
effectiveness of the program in diverse cultural contexts and
with varying degrees of implementation fidelity.
Several school-based antibullying programs inspired by the
OBPP have been implemented and evaluated in a variety of
countries, including Belgium (Stevens, Van Oost, & de Bour-
deaudhuij, 2004; Stevens et al., 2000), Canada (Pepler, Craig,
O’Connell, Atlas, & Charach, 2004; Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, &
Charach, 1994), Germany (Hanewinkel, 2004), and the United
Kingdom (Eslea & Smith, 1998; Smith, Sharp, Eslea, & Thomp-
son, 2004; Whitney, Rivers, Smith, & Sharp, 1994), with some-
what mixed results. It is important to note that these studies
cannot be seen as replications of the OBPP. The programs
implemented have deviated considerably, but to different
degrees, from the OBPP in terms of program components and
model of implementation (Olweus & Limber, 2010).
Dissemination of the OBPP: Successes and
Challenges
Dissemination of the OBPP in Norway
In building the organization and infrastructure for the previ-
ously mentioned national initiative in Norway, two overriding
principles guided the work. First, we sought to ensure that the
program was implemented with reasonable fidelity (quality con-
trol). Second, we endeavored to implement the program in a
number of schools or communities in a relatively limited period
of time.
To accommodate both of these principles, a four-level strat-
egy of dissemination, a kind of ‘‘train-the-trainer’’ model, is
used. The Olweus Group trains and supervises specially selected
instructor candidates who train and supervise ‘‘key persons’’
from a number of schools (a maximum of five schools per
instructor candidate). These key persons are then responsible
for leading recurrent staff discussion groups at each participat-
ing school.
The training of the instructor candidates consists of 11–12
whole-day assemblies distributed over a period of 12–18
months. During the interval between whole-day meetings, the
instructor candidates receive ongoing consultation via telephone
or e-mail with members of the Olweus Group. After having suc-
cessfully completed the training period, the instructor candidates
are assigned status as certified Olweus instructor for a period of
130 OLWEUS AND LIMBER
2 years. The instructor can then be recertified after having ful-
filled certain criteria.
An important task for the instructor candidates is to hold a
2-day training with key individuals from each participating
school. The instructor candidates are also involved in the
administration of the Olweus Bully ⁄ Victim Questionnaire and
in interpreting and communicating the results to the individual
school based on a 20-page report of the students’ responses split
by grade and gender. The Questionnaire is an important vehicle
for creating awareness and involvement among staff, students,
and parents. In addition, the key personnel receive continuing
supervision and assistance from their instructor.
Establishment of staff discussion groups at each participating
school is an important tool for effective dissemination and
implementation of the program. Each staff member in the
school is a member of a staff discussion group. These groups
(with up to 15 participants) meet regularly for approximately
90 min every other week under the leadership of the specially
trained key persons. The meetings are typically organized
around important components or themes of the program as
described in Olweus’ Core Program Against Bullying: A Teacher
Handbook (in Norwegian; Olweus, 2001b) and the Norwegian
version of the book Bullying at School: What We Know and
What We Can Do (Olweus, 1992, 1993a). The recurrent staff
meetings around the program serve to stimulate organizational
development of the school.
In the period from 2001 to 2008, the program has been imple-
mented in approximately 500 Norwegian schools, and more
than 125 OBPP instructors have been trained in use of the pro-
gram. Although the schools or communities pay a limited
amount for materials and use of the questionnaire, most of the
costs associated with the training of instructors have been reim-
bursed by the Norwegian government.
Using the same four-level train-the-trainer model, the OBPP
has also been implemented in a considerable number of schools
in other European countries, including Iceland, Sweden, and
Lithuania.
Dissemination of the OBPP in the United States
Initial Implementation. Based on the success of the
OBPP in Norway and the initial promising findings from the
evaluation of the OBPP in South Carolina, the OBPP was iden-
tified in 1998 as one of 10 (and ultimately 11) Blueprints for Vio-
lence Prevention by the Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence (Olweus et al., 1999). Interest in the OBPP exploded
after this designation and others (e.g., designation of the pro-
gram as a model by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration). As a result, a dissemination
strategy was developed to meet the demand for training and
related materials that were tailored to the American educational
context.
Training Model. To support implementation of the
OBPP in the United States, faculty and staff affiliated with
Clemson University’s Institute on Family and Neighborhood
Life (in consultation with the team in Norway) have worked to
achieve wide dissemination of the model to interested schools in
North America. At the same time, they have striven to imple-
ment reasonable training and consultation processes and
resources to help ensure good program fidelity.
Emphasis has been placed on building local capacity to
implement the program. To this end, training-of-trainer
(TOT) courses have been held at national, state, and local
levels, and more than 500 trainers from 42 states (plus the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) have been certified to
provide training in the model. The TOT involves participa-
tion in 5 days of intensive training over the course of 1 year
and 24 months of monthly telephone consultation with an
experienced trainer. In addition, trainers submit online pro-
gress reports of their schools’ activities and evaluations of
trainings conducted. As is the case among Norwegian train-
ers, recertification is required every 2 years in order to help
ensure that trainers keep abreast of current research and
practices.
OBPP trainers are certified to provide training and monthly
consultation (for at least one school year) to members of a
school’s Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, the
school team that is responsible for coordinating the program at
a given school. Consultation involves either in-person or tele-
phone meetings to help ensure fidelity to the model and to prob-
lem solve about challenges.
In at least 12 states where there has been particular interest in
the OBPP, state leaders have been identified. The positions of
these individuals vary—from state-level positions in depart-
ments of education to employees in relevant nonprofit organiza-
tions—as do their roles with the OBPP. Typically, these
individuals provide a variety of supports for trainers in their
state, such as holding state-level meetings of trainers and acting
as a referral point for schools interested in the training.
Early (and ongoing) Challenges in Program Dissem-
ination. Our experiences in the dissemination of the OBPP
have identified a number of challenges—some that are somewhat
unique to the American experience and others that likely are not.
These challenges generally relate to schools’ readiness to imple-
ment the program and (once a decision has been made to move
ahead with the program) their ability to do so with fidelity.
One of the biggest challenges to the successful adoption of
the OBPP—and very likely, other bullying prevention pro-
grams—is resistance on the part of some school staff and par-
ents. Early in the dissemination of the OBPP, it was common to
find a sizable number of staff (and parents) at schools who
believed that bullying was not a concern—either because they
felt it did not exist (or was rare) or because they viewed the
experience of bullying as a rite of passage or even a positive
learning experience for children.
Many adults have underestimated the significant social, emo-
tional, and academic costs of bullying and overestimated the
ability of victimized children to stop bullying without assis-
tance from adults. It is common to find a handful of nay-say-
ers at any given school. Although the attitudes of some of
these adults may be swayed with time and education, efforts to
introduce and sustain a comprehensive bullying prevention pro-
gram may be doomed if a majority of school staff do not
believe that bullying is a serious issue. The attitudes of the
school principal about bullying prevention are particularly
 BULLYING IN SCHOOL
important to the success of a school-wide program. Results
from the student questionnaire survey often act as an ‘‘eye
opener’’ and help the school make a more realistic assessment
of the actual situation.
As educators and members of the public have increasingly
recognized the need and benefits of focusing on prevention of
bullying, many have, understandably, sought simple or short-
term solutions to bullying in their schools. Often school admin-
istrators and staff wish to adopt a piecemeal approach. Bullying
may be the topic of a staff in-service training, a PTA meeting, a
school-wide assembly, or lessons taught by individual teachers.
Although such efforts may represent important initial steps in
raising awareness about the problem or in the adoption of a
comprehensive bullying prevention strategy, they cannot be
expected to reduce bullying problems on their own (Limber,
2004). What is required to reduce bullying is nothing less than a
change in the school ‘‘culture’’ and in the norms for behavior.
This message continues to be hard for many to hear.
Another challenge has to do with schools’ use of strategies to
address bullying that are fundamentally at odds with the philos-
ophy of the OBPP (Limber, 2004), such as zero-tolerance poli-
cies (see APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008, for a review of
research on the effects of these policies in school settings), peer
mediation or conflict resolution strategies, or group treatment
for students who bully. As public awareness about effective and
ineffective practice grows, we have anecdotally experienced
fewer such conflicting approaches.
A final challenge experienced in the dissemination of the
OBPP (as well as numerous other programs) in the United
States is the tendency of school personnel to ‘‘cherry-pick’’ pro-
gram elements that are perceived as easier to implement, while
failing to implement elements that require greater effort. In the
American school context, those program elements that have
posed the biggest challenge include holding weekly class meet-
ings with students and holding regular staff discussion group
meetings. With increasing time pressures on educators to cover
required academic material and to prepare students for yearly
standardized tests, many administrators and teachers have been
reluctant to set aside time for class meetings, despite evidence
that they are important to the success of the program (Olweus
& Kallestad, in press).
Experience in implementing the Olweus program in American
settings suggests that consistent use of classroom meetings tends
to be more challenging in a middle school or junior high school
environment, where children change classes and have multiple
teachers, than in an elementary school setting, where students
spend the vast majority of the school day with one teacher.
Whereas American elementary school teachers frequently have
flexibility to arrange their own weekly schedules to accommo-
date classroom meetings, staff in middle or junior high schools
typically must confer with fellow grade-level teachers and
administrators to designate an appropriate day and time each
week to hold such meetings.
Similarly, time constraints on staff have made it challenging
for some schools to set aside enough time for training and ongo-
ing staff development. Although most school administrators
have not balked at the need for two days of training for Coordi-
nating Committee members and one day of training for teachers
prior to program implementation, it has been more difficult for
131
many to designate time to train nonteaching staff, such as bus
drivers, custodial staff, and cafeteria staff, as these individuals
typically work different hours and frequently work under differ-
ent contractual requirements. Administrators also have
expressed challenges in ensuring sufficient time throughout the
school year for staff to engage in ongoing staff development
through their staff discussion groups. Nevertheless, many crea-
tive administrators, who have recognized the importance of suf-
ficient training and ongoing support for all adults in a school
building, have identified the necessary procedures, time, and
resources.
Conclusions
The OBPP is built on the belief that bullying need not and
should not be a commonplace experience for children and youth
(Olweus & Limber, 2010). Indeed, more than two decades of
research has shown that bullying can be decreased substantially
through school-wide efforts designed to reduce opportunities
and rewards for bullying and to build a feeling of community
among students and adults.
Efforts required to make this culture shift are considerable on
the part of administrators and school staff, but the benefits are
likely to be great. We (Olweus & Limber, 2010) have estimated,
based on the results from six large-scale studies in Norway, that
the OBPP helped more than 2,000 Norwegian students escape
being regularly bullied. Not only do these figures represent an
important ‘‘person’’ savings, but they also very likely signify a
substantial economic savings for society. As noted earlier, there
is considerable evidence that many victims of bullying experi-
ence mental health and health problems, such as depression,
anxiety, poor self-esteem, headaches, stomach aches, and sui-
cidal ideation.
A recent Norwegian thesis provides some perspective on the
possible magnitude of the problem. Fosse (2006) discovered that
among 160 young adults who had sought psychiatric treatment
for the first time, 50% had been bullied during their school
years, and the more severe bullying that they had experienced,
the greater their psychiatric symptoms as adults.
Although no research has yet assessed the direct effects of the
OBPP (or any other bullying prevention program) on academic
achievement, it is very reasonable to assume that reductions in
bullying would lead to improvements in achievement among
students, and particularly among children who are bullied.
Research has documented that bullied children are more likely
than nonbullied peers to want to avoid school (Kochenderfer &
Ladd, 1996; Rigby, 1996; Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor, &
Chauhan, 2004). They also receive lower grades than peers who
are not bullied (Arseneault et al., 2006; Eisenberg, Neumark-
Sztainer, & Perry, 2003). In a longitudinal study, early peer
exclusion in kindergarten was linked to decreased classroom
participation and lower academic achievement in later elemen-
tary grades (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006). As noted previously,
in the First Bergen Project, the positive effects of the OBPP
included clear improvements in several dimensions of social cli-
mate that are very likely related to academic achievement.
A substantial cost savings also may be realized by preventing
youth who bully (or potential bullies) from engaging in antisocial
and criminal behavior. Former male school bullies are clearly
132 OLWEUS AND LIMBER
overrepresented in crime registers as young adults (Olweus,
1993a; Sourander et al., 2007). Although we have not assessed
whether implementation of the OBPP has led to a reduction in
adult criminality, two large-scale projects in Norway and the
United States (described previously) documented clear program
effects on concurrent antisocial behavior of youth, including van-
dalism, theft, and truancy. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that a
proportion of youth who stop bullying in school as a result of the
OBPP may be diverted from an antisocial trajectory (Olweus &
Limber, 2010). In light of the major societal costs incurred by
individuals with conduct problems or conduct disorder (Cohen,
1998; Scott, Knapp, Henderson, & Maughan, 2001), such a result
would represent a substantial savings to society, even if the num-
ber of diverted bullies was small.
Despite the significant personal and societal costs of bullying
and the substantial savings that likely would result from wide-
spread implementation of effective bullying prevention efforts
such as the OBPP, we estimate that the majority of schools in
the United States and Norway (not to mention elsewhere
around the globe) are not implementing evidence-based bullying
prevention initiatives in schools. For example, notwithstanding
efforts to disseminate the OBPP widely, the program is being
implemented in a relatively limited percentage of schools in
Norway (approximately 25%) and in a small percentage in the
United States (approximately 4%). Within the U.S. context,
state laws typically require the establishment of bullying preven-
tion policies, but few require research-based approaches to pre-
vention and intervention. As a result, what exists in American
schools is a hodgepodge of efforts to address bullying, many of
which are short term and ⁄ or ‘‘quick fixes’’ that are unlikely to
have significant effects on the culture of bullying within schools.
What might be required to ensure that a greater percentage of
schools implement evidence-based bullying prevention programs
and practices? In our experience, the often-missing ingredients
are (a) adequate knowledge about the phenomenon, its short-
and long-term consequences, and effective prevention and
intervention practices; (b) sufficient motivation to implement
comprehensive school-based efforts; and (c) the resources to do
so.
Although public information efforts (e.g., the National Bully-
ing Prevention Campaign of the federal Health Resources and
Services Administration) and attention by the popular press
have certainly raised awareness about bullying, many educators
and other professionals lack sufficient understanding of the phe-
nomenon of bullying and of best practices in bullying preven-
tion and intervention. It is critical to infuse this information
into university curricula for future teachers and administrators
(as well as those preparing to enter health, mental health, and
law enforcement professions) and into continuing education
courses for professionals in the field.
In our experience, most educators are motivated to act in the
best interests of students, but much could be done to increase
incentives (and decrease disincentives) for school personnel to
implement comprehensive bullying prevention efforts, which
may require considerable effort on the part of administrators
and staff. Such incentives may range from those that are local
and ⁄ or personal (e.g., public recognition of distinguished build-
ing-level or class-level efforts to address bullying) to those that
are more broad based (e.g., passage of state laws that encourage
or require implementation of research-based bullying prevention
and intervention practices).
Finally, although comprehensive, research-based bullying pre-
vention efforts such as the OBPP need not be very expensive,
they do require modest training, personnel, and material
resources. Given societal savings that likely will result, such pro-
grams are wise investments by local, state, and federal govern-
ments. To the extent that bullying is viewed and addressed as an
issue of public health (and not just an issue of education), we
are hopeful there will be increased will and resources to support
such efforts.
Keywords: bullying; schools; epidemiology; Norway; United
States; cross-cultural research; children’s rights; Convention on
the Rights of the Child; victimization; diffusion of knowledge;
prevention; training of trainers; public information campaigns;
legislation; school-wide prevention
References
Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L.,
Ryan, G., et al. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United
States, 1994–1999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286,
2695–2702.
APA Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies
effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations.
American Psychologist, 63, 852–862.
Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A.,
& Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to
adjustment problems in young children: A nationally representative
cohort study. Pediatrics, 118, 130–138.
Bauer, N., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A con-
trolled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274.
Beelman, A., Pfingsten, V., & Lösel, F. (1994). Effects of training social
competence in children: A meta-analysis of recent evaluation studies.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 260–271.
Black, S. A., & Jackson, E. (2007). Using bullying incident density to
evaluate the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme. School Psychol-
ogy International, 28, 623–638.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and
victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group
rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13.
Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 5–33.
Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). G.A. Res. 44 ⁄ 25, U.N.
GAOR Supp. 49 at 165, U.N. Doc. A ⁄ 44 736.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dastaler, S., Hetland,
J., Simons-Morten, B., et al. (2009). A cross-national profile of bully-
ing and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International
Journal of Public Health, 54, S216–S224.
Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. (2003). Peer
harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. Jour-
nal of School Health, 73, 311–316.
Eslea, M., & Smith, P. K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-
bullying work in primary schools. Educational Research, 40, 203–218.
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American
schools. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Gonzalez Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S.,
Moscicki, E. K., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for effi-
cacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151–175.
 BULLYING IN SCHOOL
Fosse, G. K.. (2006). Mental health of psychiatric outpatients bullied in
childhood. Doctoral thesis, Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of
Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trond-
heim.
Hanewinkel, R. (2004). Prevention of bullying in German schools:
An evaluation of an anti-bullying approach. In P. K. Smith, D.
Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can
interventions be? (pp. 81–97). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on
peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic
review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441–455.
Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds.). (2001). Peer harassment in school.
New York: Guilford.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or
consequence for school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–
1317.
Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program in American schools: Lessons learned in the field. In D. L.
Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A
social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 351–
363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V.
(2004). Implementation of the Oweus Bullying Prevention Program in
the Southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rig-
by (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be?
(pp. 55–79). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Melton, G. B., Limber, S. P., Cunningham, P., Osgood, D. W., Cham-
bers, J., Flerx, V., et al. (1998). Violence among rural youth. Final
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Olweus, D. (1973). Hackkycklingar och översittare: Forskning om skol-
mobbning. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys:
Two short-term longitudinal studies of ratings. Child Development,
48, 1301–1313.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1986). Mobbning—vad vi vet och vad vi kan göra. Stock-
holm: Liber.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully ⁄ victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic
facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D. J. Pe-
pler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of child-
hood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1992). Mobbing i skolen: Hva vi vet ogh hva vi kan gjøre.
Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget ⁄ Gyldendals Akademiske.
Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can
do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term
outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. H. Asendorf (Eds.), Social withdrawal,
inhibition, and shyness (pp. 315–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully ⁄ Victim Questionnaire. Ber-
gen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion, University of
Bergen.
Olweus, D. (1997). Bully ⁄ victim problems in school: Facts and interven-
tion. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495–510.
Olweus, D. (2001a). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some
important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment
in school (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford.
Olweus, D. (2001b). Olweus’ core program against bullying and antisocial
behavior: A teacher handbook. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for
Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen.
133
Olweus, D. (2002). Mobbing i skolen: Nye data om omfang og forandring
overtid. Unpublished manuscript, Research Center for Health Promo-
tion, Universiteit i Bergen.
Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design and effects of the Olweus
Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 389–402.
Olweus, D. (2007). The Olweus Bullying Questionnaire. Center City,
MN: Hazelden.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some criti-
cal issues. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.),
The handbook of school bullying: An international perspective (pp. 9–
33). New York: Routledge.
Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F. D. (1991). Assessing change in a cohort longi-
tudinal study with hierarchical data. In D. Magnusson, L. R. Berg-
man, G. Rudinger, & B. Torestad (Eds.), Problems and methods in
longitudinal research (pp. 107–132). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Olweus, D., & Kallestad, J. H. (in press). Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program: Effects of classroom components at different grade levels.
In K. Osterman (Ed.), Indirect and direct aggression. New York: Peter
Lang.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Pro-
gram: Teacher guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). The Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program: Implementation and evaluation over two decades. In S. R.
Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of
school bullying: An international perspective (pp. 377–402). New York:
Routledge.
Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., Flerx, V., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M.
(2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Schoolwide guide. Center
City, MN: Hazelden.
Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1999). Blueprints for violence pre-
vention: Vol. 9. The Bullying Prevention Program. Boulder: Institute
of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Pagliocca, P. M., Limber, S. P., & Hashima, P. (2007). Evaluation report
for the Chula Vista Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Final report
prepared for the Chula Vista, CA, Police Department.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., O’Connell, P., Atlas, R., & Charach, A.
(2004). Making a difference in bullying: Evaluation of a systemic
school-based programme in Canada. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K.
Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be?
(pp. 125–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evalua-
tion of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian
Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95–110.
Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Brison,
PA: Jessica Kingsley.
Schreier, A., Wolke, D., Thomas, K., Horwood, J., Hollis, C., Gunnell,
D., et al. (2009). Prospective study of peer victimization in childhood
and psychotic symptoms in a nonclinical population at age 12 years.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 527–536.
Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J., & Maughan, B. (2001). Financial
cost of social exclusion: Follow up study of antisocial children in
adulthood. British Medical Journal, 323, 191–194.
Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two
decades of research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1–9.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., &
Slee, P. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national
perspective. London: Routledge.
Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (Eds.). (2004a). Bullying in
schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and
perspectives. London: Routledge.
134 OLWEUS AND LIMBER
Smith, P. K., Sharp, S., Eslea, M., & Thompson, D. (2004). England:
The Sheffield project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.),
Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 99–123).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P.
(2004). Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims
and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 565–581.
Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bul-
lying with the Olweus Bully ⁄ Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 29, 239–268.
Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Rönning, J. A., Elonheimo, H., Niemela, S.,
Helenius, H., et al. (2007). Childhood bullies and victims and their
risk of criminality in late adolescence. Archives of Pediatrics and Ado-
lescent Medicine, 161, 546–552.
Stassen Berger, K. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgot-
ten? Developmental Review, 27, 90–126.
Stevens, V., de Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in
Flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in pri-
mary and secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 70, 195–210.
Stevens, V., Van Oost, P., & de Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2004). Interventions
against bullying in Flemish schools: Programme development and
evaluation. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in
schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 141–165). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
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, 13–24.
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of
programmes to reduce bullying. Stockholm: Swedish National Council
for Crime Prevention.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). G. A. Res. 217A, U.N.
Doc. A ⁄ 810 at 71.
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The
final report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for
the prevention of school attacks in the U.S. Retrieved March 2, 2010,
from http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf.
Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P., & Sharp, S. (1994). The Sheffield project:
Methodology and findings. In P. Smith & S. Sharp (Eds.), School bully-
ing: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20–56). London: Routledge.
j