Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research

What works in preventing bullying: effective elements of anti-bullying programmes

Maria Ttofi David Farrington
Article information:
To cite this document:
Maria Ttofi David Farrington, (2009),"What works in preventing bullying: effective elements of anti-bullying programmes",
Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 13 - 24
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17596599200900003
Downloaded on: 20 February 2016, At: 13:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 456 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Maria M. Ttofi, David P. Farrington, Friedrich Lösel, Rolf Loeber, (2011),"Do the victims of school bullies tend to become
depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies", Journal of Aggression, Conflict and
Peace Research, Vol. 3 Iss 2 pp. 63-73 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17596591111132873
Ståle Einarsen, (1999),"The nature and causes of bullying at work", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20 Iss 1/2 pp.
16-27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729910268588
Dianne L. Hoff, Sidney N. Mitchell, (2009),"Cyberbullying: causes, effects, and remedies", Journal of Educational
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.

Administration, Vol. 47 Iss 5 pp. 652-665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910981107

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:126209 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 What works in preventing
bullying: effective elements
of anti-bullying programmes
Maria M Ttofi and David P Farrington
Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT
This paper summarises the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness
of anti-bullying programmes in schools. Extensive searches were carried out in 18 databases and
in 35 journals. The number of reports on anti-bullying programmes increased considerably over
time. Nearly 600 reports were found, but only 59 of these (describing evaluations of 30 different
programmes) were eligible for inclusion in our review because they described a high-quality
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.

evaluation. We coded the elements of the intervention in these programmes and key features of
the evaluation and related these to the effects of the intervention. These types of figures have never
been presented in any previous systematic review or meta-analysis of anti-bullying programmes.
Our meta-analysis showed that school-based anti-bullying programmes are effective in reducing
bullying and victimisation (being bullied), which were reduced by about 20Ð23% in experimental
schools, compared with control schools. The most important programme components that were
associated with a decrease in bullying were parent training, improved playground supervision,
disciplinary methods, school conferences, videos, information for parents, work with peers,
classroom rules and classroom management.

KEY WORDS
Systematic review; meta-analysis; anti-bullying programmes in schools; intervention components;
evaluation research.

Introduction much that needs to be learned about how to design

;&)(/,73)#*)37-).-%/#$.).7#%3F3-%:)'&4)(#&,F3-%:)
-**-23.)#*)G$((H/&,)#&)27/(4%-&I.)<7H./2'()'&4)
:-&3'()7-'(37)BJ3#*/)K)L'%%/&,3#&0)=>>MD)/3)/.)
understandable why school bullying has become
a topic of both public concern and research
efforts. Research on school bullying has expanded
N#%(4N/4-)BO:/37)et al0) ???D0)N/37)')A'%/-3H)#*)
intervention programmes being implemented
BO:/370)5-<(-%)K)6/,GH0)=>>P'D0)'&4)N/37).#:-)
countries legally requiring schools to implement an
'&3/FG$((H/&,)<#(/2H)B+&'&/'4#$)K)O:/370)=>>=DQ)
Bullying research should be designed sensitively
/&)#%4-%)3#)'../.3)-4$2'3/#&'(/.3.)'&4)<#(/2HF:'R-%.)/&)
tackling this troubling problem. Despite the marked
/&2%-'.-)/&)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.0)37-%-)/.).3/(()
and implement effective interventions. The varying
results of intervention research in different countries
BO:/37)K)+&'&/'4#$0)=>>!S)5-<(-%0)O:/37)K)6/,GH0)
=>>PD).7#N)37-)&-2-../3H)3#)'4A'&2-)R&#N(-4,-)
'G#$3)37-)<%-4/23/A-)-**/2/-&2H)#*)-'27)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
<%#,%'::-Q);&)<'%3/2$('%0)/3)/.)/:<#%3'&3)3#)-.3'G(/.7)
N7/27)/&3-%A-&3/#&)2#:<#&-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
programmes correlate with effect sizes, in order to
4-3-%:/&-)N7'3)'%-)37-)T'23/A-)/&,%-4/-&3.IQ)
A systematic review aims to comprehensively
locate and synthesise research that bears on a
particular question, using organised, transparent,
and replicable procedures at each step in the process
BE/33-((0)1#&2#%'&)K)5/(('/0)=>>MDQ);3)/&2($4-.)
explicit criteria for inclusion or exclusion of studies
in a highly structured way that aims to minimise

"#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34 !

 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.
G/'.)/&)37-)2#&2($./#&.)B5-33/2%-N)K)6#G-%3.0)=>>WDQ)
OH.3-:'3/2)%-A/-N.)'((#N)*#%)'):#%-)#GX-23/A-)
appraisal of the evidence than traditional narrative
%-A/-N.Q)Y$%).H.3-:'3/2)%-A/-N)'&'(H.-.)=W)H-'%.)#*)
/&3-%A-&3/#&)%-.-'%27)B*%#:) ?M!)3#)37-)-&4)#*)+<%/()
=>>MD)'&4)/.)G'.-4)#&)-Z3-&./A-)(/3-%'3$%-).-'%27-.Q)
Y$%):-3'F'&'(H./.)<%-.-&3.)')[$'&3/3'3/A-).$::'%H)
#*)-**-23)./\-.)/&)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.)'&4)
standardises the evaluation results across studies
with the aim of making solid inferences about what
works in preventing bullying, for whom and under
what circumstances.
Previous research
]'&H).27##(FG'.-4)/&3-%A-&3/#&)<%#,%'::-.)
have been devised and implemented in an
attempt to reduce school bullying. The most
/&*#%:'3/A-)./&,(-).#$%2-)#*)%-<#%3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
<%#,%'::-.)/.)37-)G##R)-4/3-4)GH)5^)O:/37)'&4)
2#((-',$-.)B=>>P'D0)N7/27)2#&3'/&.)4-.2%/<3/#&.)
#*) !)<%#,%'::-.)/:<(-:-&3-4)/&) )4/**-%-&3)
countries. There are also some reviews containing
.$::'%/-.)#*):'X#%)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.)B-,Q)
6/,GH0)=>>=S)O:/370)+&'&/'4#$)K)1#N/-0)=>>!S)
C'(4%H)K)L'%%/&,3#&0)=>>_DQ)J7-):#.3)%-(-A'&3)
-Z/.3/&,)%-A/-N.)'%-)GH)"`)O:/370)O27&-/4-%0)O:/37)
K)+&'&/'4#$)B=>>PD)N7#).$::'%/.-4)-**-23)./\-.)
/&) P)N7#(-F.27##()'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.0)
six of which were uncontrolled; and by Vreeman
K)1'%%#(()B=>>_D0)N7#)%-A/-N-4)=a).27##(FG'.-4)
<%#,%'::-.0) W)#*)N7/27)2#&2-%&-4)G$((H/&,0)N/37)
evaluations restricted to studies published in the
English language.
These two prior reviews are of high quality.
b#N-A-%0)&-/37-%)2'%%/-4)#$3)')*$(():-3'F'&'(H./.)
calculating weighted mean effect sizes and
correlations between study features and effect sizes.
+&#37-%):-3'F'&'(H3/2)%-A/-N)N'.)<$G(/.7-4)GH)
L-%,$.#&0)O'&)]/,$-(0)^/(G$%&)K)O'&27-\)B=>>_DQ)
However, this included searches in one database
#&(H0)*#%)'%3/2(-.)<$G(/.7-4)G-3N--&)37-)H-'%.) ??W)
'&4)=>>a0)N/37).3$4/-.)37'3)/&2($4-4)G#37)G$((H/&,)
and aggressive behaviour as outcome measures. We
must emphasise that our research aims to review
programmes that are explicitly designed to reduce
bullying and that explicitly measure bullying.
;&)37-)<%-.-&3).H.3-:'3/2)'&4):-3'F'&'(H3/2)
review, we go way beyond the existing body of
research by: a) doing much more extensive searches
*#%)-A'($'3/#&.0).$27)'.)7'&4F.-'%27/&,)'(()A#($:-.)
#*)!W)X#$%&'(.)*%#:) ?M!)$<)3#)37-)-&4)#*)+<%/()
=>>MS)GD).-'%27/&,)*#%)/&3-%&'3/#&'()-A'($'3/#&.)/&)
P "#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34
M)-(-23%#&/2)4'3'G'.-.)'&4)/&)('&,$',-.)#37-%)37'&)
c&,(/.7S)2D)2'%%H/&,)#$3):#%-)-Z3-&./A-):-3'F'&'(H.-.)
(including correlating effect sizes with programme
components and study features); and d) focusing
only on programmes that are specifically designed
to reduce bullying and not aggressive behaviour.
The interested reader should consult our report to
37-)ON-4/.7)d'3/#&'()1#$&2/()#&)1%/:-)5%-A-&3/#&)
BJ3#*/0)L'%%/&,3#&)K)C'(4%H0)=>>MD)*#%)'):#%-)4-3'/(-4)
technical description of our systematic review.
Criteria for inclusion or exclusion
of studies
We aimed to review only the highest quality
evaluations. We used the following criteria for
inclusion of studies in our systematic review.
a. The study described an evaluation of a
programme designed specifically to reduce school
G$((H/&,)'&4e#%)A/23/:/.'3/#&)BG-/&,)G$((/-4DQ
b. The study included a clear definition of bullying
that was concordant with existing definitions
$.-4)/&)G$((H/&,)%-.-'%27)BL'%%/&,3#&0) ??!S)
Y(N-$.0) ??!DQ)C$((H/&,)N'.)4-*/&-4)'.)
including physical, verbal, or psychological
attack or intimidation that is intended to cause
fear, distress, or harm to the victim, and an
imbalance of power, with a more powerful child
(or children) oppressing less powerful ones.
c.) )C$((H/&,)N'.):-'.$%-4)$./&,)/&4/A/4$'().-(*F
report questionnaires by students.
d. The effectiveness of the programme was measured
by comparing students who received it (the
experimental condition) with students who did not
receive it (the control condition). We require that
there must have been some control of extraneous
variables in the evaluation (establishing the
equivalence of conditions) by (i) randomisation, or
B//D)<%-F3-.3):-'.$%-.)#*)G$((H/&,0)#%)B///D)27##./&,)
some kind of comparable control condition.
Because of low internal validity, we exclude
uncontrolled studies that only had before and
after measures of bullying in experimental schools
or classes. However, we include studies that
2#&3%#((-4)*#%)',-)B',-F2#7#%3)4-./,&.DQ)
e. Published and unpublished reports of research
2#&4$23-4)/&)4-A-(#<-4)2#$&3%/-.)G-3N--&) ?M!)
and the present are included.
f.) );3)N'.)<#../G(-)3#):-'.$%-)37-)-**-23)./\-Q)J7-)
main measure of effect size is the odds ratio.
g. The minimum initial sample size (total in
-Z<-%/:-&3'()'&4)2#&3%#()2#&4/3/#&.D)N'.)=>>Q)
 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

We set this minimum for the following reasons: ]#.3)%-<#%3.)%-2#::-&4-4)#%)4-.2%/G-4)'&3/F

L/%.30)('%,-%).3$4/-.)'%-)$.$'((H)G-33-%F*$&4-4)'&4)
#*)7/,7-%):-37#4#(#,/2'()[$'(/3HQ)O-2#&40)N-)'%-)
A-%H)2#&2-%&-4)'G#$3)37-)*%-[$-&3(HF*#$&4)&-,'3/A-)
correlations between sample size and effect size (eg.
L'%%/&,3#&)K)U-(.70)=>>!S)"#((/**-)K)L'%%/&,3#&0)
=>>_DQ)U-)37/&R)37'3)37-.-)2#%%-('3/#&.):/,73)
%-*(-23)<$G(/2'3/#&)G/'.Q)O:'((-%).3$4/-.)37'3)H/-(4)
statistically significant results may be published,
whereas those that do not may be left in the file
4%'N-%Q);&)2#&3%'.30)('%,-%).3$4/-.)B#*3-&)*$&4-4)
by some official agency) are likely to be published
irrespective of their results. Excluding smaller studies
reduces problems of publication bias and therefore
yields a more accurate estimate of the true effect
size. Third, we think that larger studies are likely
to have higher external validity or generalisability.
L#$%370)'33%/3/#&)B-,Q)G-3N--&)<%-F3-.3)'&4)<#.3F3-.3D)
is less problematic in larger studies. A study with
>>)27/(4%-&)37'3).$**-%.)!>f)'33%/3/#&)N/(()-&4)$<)
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
bullying programmes rather than evaluating them.
Of the evaluation reports, many were excluded
from the present review because they had no
control condition or no outcome data on bullying
B2'3-,#%H)PD)#%).:'(()&$:G-%.)#%)&#).-(*F%-<#%3)
#$32#:-):-'.$%-.)B2'3-,#%H)WDQ
J7-)&$:G-%)#*)%-<#%3.)2#&2-%&-4)N/37)'&3/F
bullying programmes increased markedly over time.
;&)37-)('3-.3)*/A-FH-'%)3/:-)<-%/#4)B=>>!g+<%/()=>>MD0)
the number of studies in each category doubled since
37-)<%-A/#$.)*/A-FH-'%)<-%/#4Q);3)/.)A-%H)-&2#$%',/&,)
that the highest quality controlled studies were most
prevalent in the latest time period (Ttofi et al0)=>>MDQ)
As shown in Table 10)#&(H)W?)%-<#%3.)B2#&2-%&/&,)
!>)4/**-%-&3)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.D)N-%-)-(/,/G(-)
*#%)/&2($./#&)/&)37-)<%-.-&3)%-A/-N)B2'3-,#%H)aDQ)
These were divided into four categories of research
design: randomised experiments, before and after
[$'./F-Z<-%/:-&3'()4-./,&.0)#37-%)[$'./F-Z<-%/:-&3'()

N/37)#&(H)!W)G#H.)'&4)!W),/%(.V)37-.-)'%-)A-%H).:'(()
samples (with associated large confidence intervals)
for estimating the prevalence of bullying and
A/23/:/.'3/#&Q);&)2#&3%'.30)').3$4H)N/37)!>>)27/(4%-&)
'&4)!>f)'33%/3/#&)N/(()-&4)$<)N/37) >W)G#H.)'&4)
>W),/%(.V)37-.-)'%-):$27):#%-)'4-[$'3-).':<(-.Q)
O:'((-%).3$4/-.)N/(()G-)/&2($4-4)/&)37-)%-A/-N)37'3)
we are preparing for the Campbell Collaboration.
Included evaluations of
anti-bullying programmes
+)3#3'()#*)W?!)%-<#%3.)37'3)N-%-)2#&2-%&-4)N/37)
bullying prevention, as indicated by either the title or
the abstract, were included in our systematic review.
All reports were categorised based on a relevance scale
that we constructed (Table 1).
4-./,&.0)'&4)',-F2#7#%3)4-./,&.Q);&)37/.)'%3/2(-)#&(H)
one published report for each programme is listed in
Figures 1 and 2; this specifies the earliest publication
of the evaluation of the programme (for a full list of
%-*-%-&2-.)3#)'(()!>).3$4/-.0).--)J3#*/)et al0)=>>MDQ)
Analysis of effect sizes for
bullying and victimisation
The measure of effect size that we have used is the
weighted mean odds ratio (OR) with its associated
?Wf)2#&*/4-&2-)/&3-%A'()B1;DQ)U7-%-)37-)1;)/&2($4-.)
37-)27'&2-)A'($-)#*) Q>0)37-)Y6)/.)&#3).3'3/.3/2'((H)
significant. The calculation of the OR and its
'..#2/'3-4)1;)'%-)-Z<('/&-4)/&)37-)3-27&/2'()'<<-&4/Z)
'22#:<'&H/&,)#$%)%-<#%3)3#)37-)ON-4/.7)d'3/#&'()
Council on Crime Prevention (Ttofi et al)=>>MDQ

Table 1: Relevance scale

Category 1: minor relevance; recommendations for integration of survey results into anti-bullying policies; and/or talk
generally about the necessity for bullying interventions [n = 87; 14.7%].
Category 2: weak relevance; talking more specifically about anti-bullying programmes [description of more than one
anti-bullying programme]; and/or reviews of anti-bullying programmes; and/or placing emphasis on suggestions/
recommendations for reducing bullying [n = 242; 40.8%].
Category 3: medium relevance; description of a specific anti-bullying programme [n = 94; 15.9%].
Category 4: strong relevance; evaluation of an anti-bullying programme, but not included because it has no experimental
versus control comparison, or no outcome data on bullying [n = 78; 13.2%].
Category 5: included in the Campbell review; evaluation of an anti-bullying programme that has an experimental and
control condition. Sample size may be < 200; teacher and peer nominations may also be included as outcome measures [n =
17; 2.9%].
Category 6: included in the Swedish review; evaluation of an anti-bullying programme that has an experimental and control
condition. Sample size > 200 and individual self-reported bullying only is taken as outcome measure [n = 59; 9.9%].

"#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34 W

 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

Over all measures of bullying, the weighted
:-'&)Y6)N'.)G-3N--&) QP )'&4) QP!0)/&4/2'3/&,)')
substantial effect of these programmes on bullying.
J#),/A-)')2#&2%-3-)-Z':<(-0)/*)37-%-)N-%-)=>)G$((/-.)
'&4)M>)&#&FG$((/-.)/&)37-)-Z<-%/:-&3'()2#&4/3/#&)
'&4)=a)G$((/-.)'&4)_P)&#&FG$((/-.)/&)37-)2#&3%#()
2#&4/3/#&0)37-)Y6)N#$(4)G-) QP Q)b-&2-0)Y6)h)
QP )2'&)2#%%-.<#&4)3#)!>f):#%-)G$((/-.)/&)37-)
2#&3%#()2#&4/3/#&)B#%)2#&A-%.-(H)=!f)*-N-%)G$((/-.)
in the experimental condition).
With regard to victimisation, over all studies,
37-)N-/,73-4):-'&)Y6)N'.)G-3N--&) Q!!)'&4)
Q!W0)/&4/2'3/&,)./,&/*/2'&3)-**-23.)#*)37-.-)
programmes on victimisation (being bullied). To
give a further illustrative example, if there were
=>)A/23/:.)'&4)M>)&#&FA/23/:.)/&)37-)-Z<-%/:-&3'()
2#&4/3/#&0)'&4)=W)A/23/:.)'&4)_W)&#&FA/23/:.)/&)
37-)2#&3%#()2#&4/3/#&0)37-&)Y6)h) Q!!Q)b-&2-0)#$%)
A'($-.)#*)37-)Y6)2#%%-.<#&4)3#)=Wf):#%-)A/23/:.)
/&)37-)2#&3%#()2#&4/3/#&)B#%)2#&A-%.-(H0)=>f)*-N-%)
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
37/.)<%#,%'::-Q);&)Figures 1 and 2, studies are
organised according to research design.
Element 1)BN7#(-F.27##()'&3/FG$((H/&,)<#(/2HD)
/&A#(A-.)37-)<%-.-&2-)#*)')*#%:'()'&3/FG$((H/&,)
<#(/2H)/&)37-).27##(Q);&):'&H).27##(.0)'.)/&4/2'3-4)
by researchers, such a policy was already in effect.
Element 2 (classroom rules) refers to the use of rules
against bullying that students were expected to
*#((#NQ);&):'&H)<%#,%'::-.0)37-.-)%$(-.)N-%-)
37-)%-.$(3)#*)2#F#<-%'3/A-),%#$<)N#%R)G-3N--&)
the teachers and the students, usually after some
extent of exposure of the students to the philosophy
#%):-..',-.)#*)37-)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-Q);&)
many cases the rules were written on a notice
that was displayed in a distinctive place in the
classroom. Element 3 (school conferences) refers to
the organisation of school assemblies during which
27/(4%-&)N-%-)/&*#%:-4)'G#$3)G$((H/&,Q);&):'&H)
programmes, these conferences were organised after
37-)<%-F3-.3)4'3')2#((-23/#&)'&4)'/:-4)3#)/&*#%:)

victims in the experimental condition).
Key elements of the programme
c'27)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-)/&2($4-4)')A'%/-3H)
#*)/&3-%A-&3/#&)-(-:-&3.Q);&)#%4-%)3#)/&A-.3/,'3-)
the relationship between intervention elements and
effect size in a comparable way, all elements were
dichotomised (in order to produce roughly equal
groups of studies, as much as possible). Figure 1
shows the elements of the intervention for each
.3$4HQ);&)2#&.3%$23/&,)37/.)L/,$%-0)N-)2#&.$(3-4)
the evaluators of the various programmes, and
sent them our coding of the elements of the
/&3-%A-&3/#&Q)CH):/4F"$(H)=>>M0)N-)7'4)%-2-/A-4)
*--4G'2R)#&)=P)#$3)#*)!>)<%#,%'::-.)'&4)
relevant changes were made to the coding where
appropriate. For instance, even though Bauer,
E#\'&#)K)6/A'%')B=>>_D)/&2($4-4)'&)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
A/4-#0)37/.)'&3/FG$((H/&,):-37#4)N'.)/:<(-:-&3-4)
in only two out of seven intervention schools,
so we did not code this element as included in
students about the extent of bullying in their school.
This was perceived as a way of sensitising students
about bullying and as a means of announcing the
formal beginning of the intervention programme
in the school. Element 4 (curriculum materials)
refers to the use of materials about bullying during
2('..%##:)(-..#&.Q)O#:-)<%#,%'::-.)/&A#(A-4)')&-N)
curriculum whereas in others teachers incorporated
'&3/FG$((H/&,):'3-%/'(.)/&3#)37-)%-,$('%)2$%%/2$($:Q)
Element 5 (classroom management) refers
to an emphasis on classroom management
techniques in detecting and dealing with bullying.
Element 6)B2#F#<-%'3/A-),%#$<)N#%RD)%-*-%.)3#)37-)
2#F#<-%'3/#&)':#&,)4/**-%-&3)<%#*-../#&'(.)B$.$'((H)
among teachers and some other professional
groups) in working with bullies and victims of
bullying. Elements 7 and 8 (work with bullies and
victims) concern individualised work, not offered in
the classroom, with children involved in bullying
'.)A/23/:.)#%)<-%<-3%'3#%.Q);&):#.3)<%#,%'::-.0)
this service was offered by professionals, such as
psychologists, who collaborated with teachers in
the school. Element 9 (work with peers) refers to the

(legend for Figure 1)

Note: 1 = whole school anti-bullying policy; 2 = classroom rules; 3 = school conferences providing information about bullying to
pupils; 4 = curriculum materials; 5 = classroom management; 6 = co-operative group work among experts [eg. among teachers,
counsellors and interns]; 7 = work with bullies; 8 = work with victims; 9 = work with peers [eg. peer mediation; peer mentoring; peer
group pressure as bystanders]; 10 = information for teachers; 11 = information for parents; 12 = increased playground supervision;
13 = disciplinary methods; 14 = non-punitive methods [eg. ‘Pikas’ or ‘No Blame Approach’]; 15 = restorative justice approaches; 16
= school tribunals/school bully courts; 17 = teacher training; 18 = parent training; 19 = videos; 20 = virtual reality environments/
computer games; EP = educational presentations to parents; MP = meetings with parents; CP = consultation for parents; IN =
information nights; A full reference list for all studies can be obtained direct from the authors.

a "#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34

 Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.

Figure 1: Key features of intervention

STUDY: ELEMENTS: ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Randomised experiments
Baldry & Farrington, 2004 N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N
Cross et al, 2004 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y N Y N
De Rosier, 2004 N N N Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N
Fekkes et al, 2006 Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N N Y
Frey et al, 2005 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y N
Hunt, 2007 Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N
Jenson & Dieterich, 2007 N N Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N
Rosenbluth et al, 2004 Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y EP N N
Salmivalli et al 2009 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y IN Y Y
Before/after experimental-control comparisons
Andreou et al, 2007 N Y N Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N
Bauer et al, 2007 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y N N N
Ciucci & Smorti, 1998 N N Y N N Y N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N N N
Melton et al, 1998 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N
Menard et al, 2008 Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N N N N Y CP N N
Bergen 2 [1997–1998] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y MP Y N
Pepler et al, 2004 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y IN N N
Rahey & Craig, 2002 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Y IN N N
Rican et al, 1996 N Y N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y N N N N N Y N
Stevens et al, 2000 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y MP Y N
Whitney et al, 1994 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y N
Other experimental-control comparisons
Evers et al, 2007 N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y
Galloway & Roland, 2004 N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N
Ortega et al, 2004 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y N N N
Raskauskas, 2007 Y Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y N
Age-cohort designs
Ertesvag & Vaaland, 2007 Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y IN Y N
Bergen 1 [1983–1985] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y MP Y N
Oslo 1 [1999–2000] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y MP Y N
National Norway [2001–2007] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y MP Y N
Oslo 2 [2001–2006] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y MP Y N
Salmivalli et al, 2004 Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N
U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

"#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34

_
 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

formal engagement of peers in tackling bullying. al0)=>>PS)U7/3&-H)et al0) ??PDQ)Element 16 (school

This could involve the use of several strategies such
as peer mediation (students working as mediators
in the interactions among students involved in
bullying) and peer mentoring, which was usually
offered by older students.
Elements 10 and 11 (information for teachers and
parents): many programmes offered information for
teachers and parents, but it was not possible for us
to assess the quality of the information provided.
For instance, many programmes reported the
presence of a manual that teachers could consult
in the implementation of the intervention, but
the extent to which this manual was structured
is sometimes difficult for us to assess. The same
can be said about the information provided to
<'%-&3.Q);3)N'.)2(-'%)3#)$.)37'3)<%#,%'::-.)
differed a lot in the quality of this information.
;&).#:-)<%#,%'::-.)<'%-&3.)N-%-)<%#A/4-4)N/37)
&-N.(-33-%.)%-,'%4/&,)37-)'&3/FG$((H/&,)/&/3/'3/A-)
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
tribunals and bully courts) was not used to any great
extent in any of the present studies. Bully courts were
#**-%-4)'.)'&)#<3/#&'()-(-:-&3)N/37/&)37-)O7-**/-(4)
i^)<%#,%'::-)BO:/37)et al0)=>>PGD0)G$3)&#).27##()
actually established one.
Element 17 (teacher training): This was coded as
present or absent. We also coded both the duration
(number of meetings among experts and teachers)
as well as the intensity (number of hours) of this
training (see later). Again, we sent emails to the
evaluators of the different programmes and asked
*#%)37-/%)'4A/2-Q)O#:-)%-.-'%27-%.)N-%-)%-.<#&./A-)
and offered us adequate information on both the
duration and the intensity of teacher training
to the extent that we could be confident about
our accuracy in coding these elements. For other
programmes, however, we could not code one or
both of these features of teacher training. Element
18 (parent training): This refers to the organisation

in their school, while in others parents were #*)/&*#%:'3/#&)&/,73.e-4$2'3/#&'()<%-.-&3'3/#&.)

given guides on how to help their child deal with
G$((H/&,)'.)N-(()'.)/&*#%:'3/#&)'G#$3)37-)'&3/F
bullying initiative implemented in their school.
However, the overall information that we had
regarding this element of the intervention did not
allow us to differentiate among different levels of
its implementation across programmes.
Element 12 (improved playground supervision):
.#:-)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.)'/:-4)3#)/4-&3/*H)
T7#3F.<#3.I)#%)T7#3F3/:-.I)#*)G$((H/&,)B:#.3(H)4$%/&,)
playtime or lunchtime) and provided improved
playground supervision of children. Element 13
(disciplinary methods): some programmes emphasised
punitive methods in dealing with bullying situations.
Elements 14 and 15)B&#&F<$&/3/A-):-37#4.DV)+)*-N)
programmes included restorative justice approaches
'&4)#37-%)&#&F<$&/3/A-):-37#4.).$27)'.)37-)T5/R'.)
:-37#4I)'&4)37-)Td#)C(':-I)'<<%#'27)/&)4-'(/&,)
with children involved in bullying (eg. Ortega et
*#%)<'%-&3.)'&4e#%)3-'27-%g<'%-&3):--3/&,.)4$%/&,)
which parents were given information about the
'&3/FG$((H/&,)/&/3/'3/A-)/&)37-).27##(Q)Elements 19
and 20 (videos and virtual reality computer games):
some programmes utilised technology in their
:'3-%/'(.).$27)'.)37-)$.-)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)A/4-#.)#%)
A/%3$'()%-'(/3H)2#:<$3-%),':-.)3#)%'/.-).3$4-&3.I)
awareness about bullying and how to deal with it.
We also coded other features of the intervention
programmes (see Figure 2DQ);&)#%4-%)3#)/&A-.3/,'3-)
the relationship between evaluation features and
effect size in a comparable way, all features were
dichotomised (in order to produce roughly equal
groups, as much as possible). For instance, we coded
the number of elements included in a programme
#$3)#*)=>0)4/27#3#:/.-4)/&3#) >)#%)(-..)A-%.$.) )
#%):#%-Q)Y(N-$.)B=>>WD)%-<#%3-4)')T4#.-F%-.<#&.-I)
relationship between the number of components
implemented in a school and the effect on bullying.

(legend for Figure 2)

Note: N.C. = Number of intervention components [A = 10 or less; B = 11 or more]; T.O. = Theoretical Orientation [C = based/ inspired
by Olweus; D = different from Olweus]; D.C. = Duration of intervention for children [E = 240 days or less; F = 270 days or more]; I.C.
= Intensity of intervention for children [G = 19 hours or less; H = 20 hours or more]; D.T. = Duration of intervention for teachers [I =
3 day meetings or less; J = 4 day meetings or more]; I.T. = Intensity of intervention for teachers [K = 14 hours or less; L = 15 hours or
more]; O.M. = Outcome measure [M = means, prevalence, other measures; N = 2 or more times per month]; S.S. = Sample size [O =
1499 or less; P = 1500 or more]; P.D. = Publication date [Q = 2003 or before; R = 2004 or later]; A.A. = Average age [S = 10 or less; T
= 11 or more]; I.L. = Location of intervention [U = in Norway; V = elsewhere in Europe; W1 = in the USA; W2 = other than Europe and
the USA]; M.D. = Methodological design [Y = randomised experiment or before/after experimental-control comparison; Z = other
experimental-control comparison or an age-cohort design] X = not an intervention element; " = missing value; O.R.B = Odds ratio
for bullying; O.R.V = Odds ratio for victimisation; = Odds ratio for bullying and/or victimisation not measured: A full reference list
for all studies can be obtained direct from the authors.

M "#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34

 Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.

Figure 2: Key features of evaluation

STUDY: ELEMENTS: ! N.C. T.O. D.C. I.C. D.T. I.T. O.M. S.S. P.D. A.A. I.L. M.D. O.R.B O.R.V
Baldry & Farrington, 2004 A D E G X X M O R T V Y 1.14 1.69
Cross et al, 2004 B D F G I K M P R S W2 Y 0.77 1.07
De Rosier, 2004 A D E G X X M O R S W1 Y 0.87 1.04
Fekkes et al, 2006 A C F H I " M P R S V Y 1.12 1.25
Frey et al, 2005 A D E G " K M O R S W1 Y 1.04 1.09
Hunt, 2007 A D E G X X M O R T W2 Y 1.46 1.26
Jenson & Dieterich, 2007 A D F H X X M O R S W1 Y 1.17 1.63
Rosenbluth et al, 2004 B C E G I L M P R T W1 Y 0.99 0.70
Salmivalli et al, 2009 B D F H J L N P R S V Y 1.47 1.66
Andreou et al, 2007 A D E G J L M O R S V Y 1.75 1.48
Bauer et al, 2007 B C E G J K M P R T W1 Y 1.01
Ciucci & Smorti, 1998 A D F " I " M O Q S V Y 1.20 1.21
Melton et al, 1998 B C F H " " M P Q T W1 Y 1.52 1.06
Menard et al, 2008 A D F G " L M P R T W1 Y 1.64 1.22
Bergen 2 [1997–1998] B C E H J L N P R T U Y 1.79 1.43
Pepler et al, 2004 B C F " J K M O R S W2 Y 1.69 0.94
Rahey & Craig, 2002 B D E G I " M O Q S W2 Y 1.19 0.79
Rican et al, 1996 A C E " X X M O Q S V Y 2.52 2.43
Stevens et al, 2000 B C E G " L M O Q T V Y
Whitney et al, 1994 B C F " X X M P Q S V Y 2.12 1.26
Evers et al, 2007 A D " G X X M O R T W1 Z 2.15 2.33
Galloway & Roland, 2004 A D F " J L M O R S U Z 1.20 1.59
Ortega et al, 2004 B D F H J L N O R T V Z 1.63 2.12
Raskauskas, 2007 A D E G X X M P R S W2 Z 1.20 1.35
Ertesvag & Vaaland, 2007 B D F " J L M P R T U Z 1.34 1.18
Bergen 1 [1983–1985] B C F H J L N P Q T U Z 1.69 2.89
Oslo 1 [1999–2000] B C F H J L N P R T U Z 2.14 1.81
National Norway [2001–2007] B C F H J L N P R T U Z 1.78 1.59
Oslo 2 [2001–2006] B C F H J L N P R T U Z 1.75 1.48
Salmivalli et al, 2004 A C F " J L M P R T V Z 1.31 1.30
U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

"#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34

?
 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.
We have also coded the following key aspects of the
way the programme was implemented: a) The extent
to which the programme was or was not inspired by
the work of Dan Olweus (see later); b) The duration
of the programme for children, dichotomised
/&3#)=P>)4'H.)#%)(-..)A-%.$.)=_>)4'H.)#%):#%-S)
c) The intensity of the programme for children,
4/27#3#:/.-4)/&3#) ?)7#$%.)#%)(-..)A-%.$.)=>)7#$%.)
or more; d) The duration of the teacher training,
dichotomised into three days or less versus four days
or more; and e) The intensity of the teacher training,
4/27#3#:/.-4)/&3#) P)7#$%.)#%)(-..)A-%.$.) W)7#$%.)
or more.
Key features of the evaluation
Figure 2 also shows key features of the evaluations
(eg. sample size, research design, average age etc).
Research design was dichotomised into randomised
-Z<-%/:-&3.)<($.)G-*#%-e'*3-%)-Z<-%/:-&3'(F
2#&3%#()4-./,&.)A-%.$.)#37-%)-Z<-%/:-&3'(F2#&3%#()
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
4-./,&.)<($.)',-F2#7#%3)4-./,&.Q)Y37-%)*-'3$%-.)
of the evaluation that were investigated were as
*#((#N.V)'D)O':<(-)./\-)B-Z<-%/:-&3'()<($.)2#&3%#()
2#&4/3/#&.D0)4/27#3#:/.-4)/&3#) 0W>>)27/(4%-&)#%)
:#%-)A-%.$.) 0P??)27/(4%-&)#%)(-..Q)GD)5$G(/2'3/#&)
4'3-0)4/27#3#:/.-4)/&3#)=>>P)#%)('3-%)A-%.$.)=>>!)#%)
earlier; c) Average age of the children, dichotomised
/&3#) >)#%)(-..)A-%.$.) )#%):#%-S)4D)E#2'3/#&0)/&)37-)
iO+)A-%.$.)#37-%)<('2-.S)-D)E#2'3/#&)/&)#37-%)<('2-.)
A-%.$.)d#%N'HS)*D)E#2'3/#&)/&)#37-%)<('2-.)A-%.$.)
Europe; g) Outcome measure, dichotomised into
others versus a dichotomous measure of two or more
times per month. This latter measure was associated
with larger effect sizes than mean scores or simple
prevalences.
Most importantly, Figure 2 also shows the
odds ratio effect sizes for each programme. These
are given for bullying and victimisation separately.
Effect sizes for bullying and victimisation were
./,&/*/2'&3(H)2#%%-('3-4)B%)h)>QWM0)<)jQ>>> D)G$3)
some programmes had more effect on one rather
37'&)37-)#37-%Q)+.)-Z<('/&-4)-'%(/-%0)'&)Y6)#*) Q>>)
indicates no effect of a programme, while larger
ORs indicate successful programmes. ORs less
than 1 indicate harmful programmes, but luckily
there were very few of these. By comparing ORs in
Figures 1 and 2 with intervention elements, it is
possible to determine what were the most successful
programmes and what were their components.
These types of Figures have never been presented
/&)'&H)<%-A/#$.).H.3-:'3/2)%-A/-N)#%):-3'F'&'(H./.)
#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.0)'&4)N-)7'A-)&-A-%)
seen anything like them in any published systematic
review in criminology.
=> "#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34
The Olweus Programme
As an example, the programme developed by Dan
Y(N-$.)/&)d#%N'H)B37-)Y(N-$.)C$((H/&,)5%-A-&3/#&)
Programme; OBPP) was shown to be effective in
*/A-)-A'($'3/#&.V)C-%,-&) )'&4)=0)Y.(#) )'&4)=0)'&4)
')&'3/#&'()/&/3/'3/A-)/&)d#%N'H)BY(N-$.0)=>>PDQ)
J7-)YC55)N'.)'):$(3/F(-A-()<%#,%'::-)3'%,-3/&,)
the individual, the school, the classroom and the
2#::$&/3H)(-A-(Q)+<'%3)*%#:):'..F:-4/')<$G(/2/3H0)
37-)<%#,%'::-).3'%3-4)N/37)')#&-F4'H).27##()
conference during which the problem of bullying was
discussed between school staff, students and parents.
This signalled the formal commencement of the
intervention. Two different types of materials were
provided: a handbook or manual for teachers and
a folder with information for parents and families.
J7-)<%#,%'::-)'(.#)/&2($4-4V)'D)')1`F<%#,%'::-)
that was used for assessing and analysing the data
#G3'/&-4)'3)37-)<%-F3-.3)<-%/#40).#)37'3).27##(F.<-2/*/2)
interventions could then be implemented; b) a video
#&)G$((H/&,S)2D)37-)6-A/.-4)Y(N-$.)C$((He9/23/:)
Questionnaire and d) the book Bullying at School:
U7'3)N-)R&#N)'&4)N7'3)N-)2'&)4#)BY(N-$.0) ??!DQ)
J7-)'&3/FG$((H/&,):-'.$%-.):'/&(H)3'%,-3-4)
three different levels of intervention: the school, the
classroom and the individual. At the school level, the
intervention included:
8) ):--3/&,.)':#&,)3-'27-%.)3#)4/.2$..)N'H.)#*)
/:<%#A/&,)<--%F%-('3/#&.
8) .3'**)4/.2$../#&),%#$<.
8) )<'%-&3e3-'27-%):--3/&,.)3#)4/.2$..)37-)/..$-)#*)
bullying
8) )/&2%-'.-4).$<-%A/./#&)/&)37-)<('H,%#$&4)'&4)'3)
lunchtime
8) /:<%#A-:-&3)#*)<('H,%#$&4)*'2/(/3/-.
8) ')[$-.3/#&&'/%-).$%A-H
8) 37-)*#%:'3/#&)#*)')2#F#%4/&'3/&,),%#$<Q
At the classroom level the intervention included:
8) ).3$4-&3.)N-%-),/A-&)/&*#%:'3/#&)'G#$3)G$((H/&,)
and were actively involved in devising class rules
against bullying
8) )2('..%##:)'23/A/3/-.)*#%).3$4-&3.)g).$27)'.)%#(-F
playing situations that could help students learn
how to deal with bullying more successfully
8) 2('..)%$(-.)','/&.3)G$((H/&,
8) 2('..):--3/&,.)N/37).3$4-&3.
8) :--3/&,.)N/37)<'%-&3.Q
At the individual level the intervention included:
8) )3'(R.)N/37)G$((/-.)'&4)37-/%)<'%-&3.)'&4)
-&*#%2-:-&3)#*)&#&F7#.3/(-0)&#&F<7H./2'().'&23/#&.
 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

8) 3) '(R.)N/37)A/23/:.0)<%#A/4/&,).$<<#%3)'&4) targeted all students in raising awareness about

providing assertiveness skills training to help
them learn how to successfully deal with
bullying; also, talks with the parents of victims
8) )3'(R.)N/37)27/(4%-&)&#3)/&A#(A-4)3#):'R-)37-:)
become effective helpers.
This successful programme could be the basis of
*$3$%-)'&3/FG$((H/&,)/&/3/'3/A-.Q);3)/.)N#%37)&#3/&,)
37'3)37-)37-#%-3/2'()#%/-&3'3/#&)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
programmes (ie. whether they were inspired or
based on the OBPP or not) was significantly
associated with a decrease in bullying. These
correlations do not prove a causal effect of these
components on bullying but they are suggestive.
Most programmes seem to be based on common
sense ideas about what works in preventing bullying
rather than on specific theories of bullying.
O#:-)<%#,%'::-.)N-%-)(##.-(H)G'.-4)#&)')
37-#%HQ)L#%)-Z':<(-0)37-)k%--R)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
bullying and about the causes and consequences of
'4#<3/&,)4/**-%-&3)%#(-.Q)b#N-A-%0)&#)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
<%#,%'::-)N'.)G'.-4)#&)N-((F4-A-(#<-4)'&4)3-.3-4)
theories of bullying such as defiance theory or
reintegrative shaming theory (Ttofi & Farrington,
=>>M'S)=>>MGDQ)6-.-'%27)/.)&--4-4)3#)4-A-(#<)'&4)
test better theories of bullying and victimisation as
a basis for new intervention programmes.
Effect size versus study features
There have been few other attempts to relate effect
size to programme elements (see eg. Kaminski et
al0)=>>MDQ)Table 2 shows the programme elements
and design features that were significantly (or
nearly significantly in two cases) related to effect
sizes for bullying. Because of insufficient variation,
*/A-)#*)37-)=>)<%#,%'::-)-(-:-&3.)2#$(4)&#3)G-)
investigated (curriculum materials, information
for teachers, restorative justice approaches, school

programme of Andreou, Didaskalou & Vlachou 3%/G$&'(.eG$((H)2#$%3.)'&4)A/%3$'()%-'(/3H)2#:<$3-%)

B=>>_D)N'.)/&.</%-4)GH)O'(:/A'((/I.)B ???D)/4-') games). The weighted mean OR effect sizes are
that bullying involves social roles and expectations '(.#),/A-&)*#%)37-)4/**-%-&3)2'3-,#%/-.Q);&)#%4-%)3#)
that are supported by bystanders as well as by test whether the variation in the effect size measure
bullies and victims. Therefore, the programme is statistically significant, it is necessary to calculate

Table 2: Significant relationships with bullying

Cat (n) OR Cat (n) OR QB P
Programme elements
Disciplinary methods No (18) 1.30 Yes (10) 1.66 18.27 .0001
Parent training No (17) 1.28 Yes (11) 1.59 15.55 .0001
Intensity for children 19- (11) 1.28 20+ (10) 1.65 14.85 .0001
Playground supervision No (18) 1.29 Yes (10) 1.60 14.31 .0002
Duration for children 240- (10) 1.18 270+ (17) 1.51 14.13 .0002
Duration for teachers 3- (13) 1.20 4+ (12) 1.55 14.10 .0002
Inspired by Olweus No (16) 1.31 Yes (12) 1.60 12.77 .0004
Intensity for teachers 14- (11) 1.23 15+ (13) 1.54 12.21 .0005
Total elements 10- (14) 1.31 11+ (14) 1.54 8.32 .004
Information for parents No (9) 1.24 Yes (19) 1.48 6.03 .014
School conferences No (12) 1.33 Yes (16) 1.52 5.80 .016
Classroom rules No (7) 1.22 Yes (21) 1.46 4.55 .033
Classroom management No (7) 1.23 Yes (21) 1.46 4.10 .043

Design features
Age of children 10- (14) 1.21 11+ (14) 1.57 20.09 .0001
Publication year 04+ (18) 1.31 03- (10) 1.69 18.75 .0001
Outcome measure Other (21) 1.33 2+M (7) 1.74 18.51 .0001
In Norway Rest (21) 1.34 Nor (7) 1.58 7.76 .005
In Europe Rest (12) 1.32 EU (16) 1.53 6.47 .011

Notes: Cat = Category of variable; OR = Weighted mean odds ratio; QB = heterogeneity between groups; Duration in days; Intensity
in hours; Outcome Measure 2+M: two times per month or more (versus other measures)

"#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34 =

 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.

the heterogeneity between groups or QB (Lipsey &
U/(.#&0)=>> V !Wg !MDQ)L#%)-Z':<(-0)37-):-'&)
Y6)N'.) QW?)*#%)/&3-%A-&3/#&.)/&2($4/&,)<'%-&3)
3%'/&/&,)'&4) Q=M)*#%)/&3-%A-&3/#&.)&#3)/&2($4/&,)
<'%-&3)3%'/&/&,0)')./,&/*/2'&3)4/**-%-&2-)B<jQ>>> DQ
The most important programme elements that
were associated with a decrease in bullying were
parent training, improved playground supervision,
disciplinary methods, school conferences,
information for parents, classroom rules and
classroom management. These correlations do
not prove a causal effect of these components on
G$((H/&,)G$3)37-H)'%-).$,,-.3/A-Q);&)'44/3/#&0)
the total number of elements, and the duration
and intensity of the programme for children and
teachers, were significantly associated with a
decrease in bullying. Programmes inspired by the
N#%R)#*)`'&)Y(N-$.)N#%R-4)G-.3Q)O-A-%'()#37-%)
programmes not inspired by the work of Olweus
N-%-)'(.#).$22-..*$(V)37-)L/&&/.7)+&3/FC$((H/&,)
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
Regarding the design features, the programmes
N#%R-4)G-33-%)N/37)#(4-%)27/(4%-&0)/&)d#%N'H)
specifically, and in Europe more generally. Older
programmes, and those in which the outcome
measure of bullying was two times per month or
:#%-0)'(.#)N#%R-4)G-33-%Q)d#)<%#,%'::-)-(-:-&3)
was significantly associated with an increase in
bullying.
Table 3 shows the programme elements and
design features that were significantly related
to effect sizes for victimisation (being bullied).
The most important programme elements that
were associated with a decrease in victimisation
were videos, disciplinary methods, work with
<--%.0)<'%-&3)3%'/&/&,)'&4)2#F#<-%'3/A-),%#$<)
N#%RQ);&)'44/3/#&0)37-)4$%'3/#&)'&4)/&3-&./3H)
of the programme for children and teachers
were significantly associated with a decrease in
victimisation. Regarding the design features, the
<%#,%'::-.)N#%R-4)G-33-%)/&)d#%N'H).<-2/*/2'((H)

<%#,%'::-)BO'(:/A'((/0)^'$R/'/&-&)K)9#-3-&0) and in Europe more generally, and they were less

=>>WD0)37-)k%--R)+&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-)
(Andreou et al0)=>>_D0)37-)^/')^'7')<%#,%'::-)
B6'.R'$.R'.0)=>>_D0)37-)^/9')<%#,%'::-)
BO'(:/A'((/0)^'%&')K)5#.R/<'%3'0)=>>?D)'&4)37-)
6-.<-23)<%#,%'::-)Bc%3-.A',)K)9''('&40)=>>_DQ)
-**-23/A-)/&)37-)iO+Q)Y(4-%)<%#,%'::-.0)37#.-)
in which the outcome measure was two times per
:#&37)#%):#%-0)'&4)37#.-)N/37)#37-%)-Z<-%/:-&3'(F
2#&3%#()'&4)',-F2#7#%3)4-./,&.0)'(.#)N#%R-4)
G-33-%Q)d#)<%#,%'::-)-(-:-&3)N'.)./,&/*/2'&3(H)
associated with an increase in victimisation.

Table 3: Significant relationships with victimisation

Cat (N) OR Cat (N) OR QB P
Programme elements
Videos No (14) 1.15 Yes (15) 1.47 25.69 .0001
Disciplinary methods No (19) 1.21 Yes (10) 1.50 21.64 .0001
Duration for children 240- (11) 1.13 270+ (17) 1.42 18.09 .0001
Intensity for teachers 14- (12) 1.18 15+ (13) 1.47 17.02 .0001
Work with peers No (20) 1.11 Yes (9) 1.41 15.43 .0001
Parent training No (19) 1.23 Yes (10) 1.47 15.24 .0001
Intensity for children 19- (11) 1.22 20+ (11) 1.46 10.77 .001
Co-operative group work No (14) 1.22 Yes (15) 1.42 9.51 .002
Duration for teachers 3- (13) 1.23 4+ (13) 1.44 7.27 .007

Design features
Outcome measure Other (22) 1.18 2+M (7) 1.64 49.19 .0001
In Europe Rest (13) 1.13 EU (16) 1.52 40.90 .0001
Design 12 (19) 1.13 34 (10) 1.53 40.73 .0001
In Norway Rest (22) 1.20 Nor (7) 1.55 30.77 .0001
Not in USA US (8) 1.10 Rest (21) 1.45 27.26 .0001
Publication year 04+ (19) 1.23 03- (10) 1.52 21.04 .0001

Notes: Cat = Category of variable; OR = Weighted mean odds ratio; QB = heterogeneity between groups; Design: 12 = randomised
experiments + before/after / experimental-control versus 34 = other experimental-control + age-cohort designs; Duration in days;
Intensity in hours; Outcome Measure 2+M: two times per month or more (versus other measures)

== "#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34

 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.
Summary of main findings
Y$%).H.3-:'3/2)%-A/-N).7#N.)37'3).27##(FG'.-4)
'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.)'%-)#*3-&)-**-23/A-Q)
O#:-)<%#,%'::-.)B-.<-2/'((H)37#.-)G'.-4)#&)37-)
work of Dan Olweus) are clearly more promising
than others. Particular programme elements
were associated with a decrease in bullying and
A/23/:/.'3/#&)BG-/&,)G$((/-4DQ)d#)<%#,%'::-)
element was significantly associated with an
increase in bullying or victimisation.
The main policy implication of our review is that
&-N)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.).7#$(4)G-)4-./,&-4)
'&4)3-.3-4)G'.-4)#&)#$%)%-.$(3.Q);&)<'%3/2$('%0)
programmes should be targeted at children aged
11 or older, rather than younger children. The
outcome measure of bullying or victimisation
should be two times per month or more. Future
interventions could be grounded in the successful
Olweus programme but should be modified in light
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
of the key programme components that we have
found to be most effective.
+(.#0)2#.3FG-&-*/3)'&'(H.-.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
programmes should be carried out, to investigate
how much money is saved for the money expended
BU-(.70)L'%%/&,3#&)K)O7-%:'&0)=>> DQ)O'A/&,)
:#&-H)/.)')<#N-%*$()'%,$:-&3)3#)2#&A/&2-)<#(/2HF
makers and practitioners to implement intervention
<%#,%'::-.)BL'%%/&,3#&0)=>>MV)W?DQ)
L/&'((H0)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.).7#$(4)G-)
based on theories of bullying and victimisation
BC'(4%H)K)L'%%/&,3#&0)=>>_V)=> DQ);&),-&-%'(0)37-)
existing programmes are not. These theories should
guide programme development. More research is
needed on the development and testing of theories
of bullying and victimisation.
;&)2#&2($./#&0)%-.$(3.)#G3'/&-4).#)*'%)/&)
-A'($'3/#&.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.)'%-)
encouraging. The time is ripe to mount a new
programme of research on the effectiveness of these
programmes, based on our findings.
Address for correspondence
Professor David P Farrington
;&.3/3$3-)#*)1%/:/&#(#,H
Cambridge University
O/4,N/2R)+A-&$-
1':G%/4,-)1C!)?`+
UK
Email: dpf1@cam.ac.uk
"#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34
Implications for policy-making
8) ]) '&H)BG$3)&#3)'((D).27##(FG'.-4)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
<%#,%'::-.)'%-)-**-23/A-S)7/,7F[$'(/3H)
intervention research on school bullying
should be encouraged.
8) )d-N)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.).7#$(4)G-)
designed and tested based on the intervention
components that are significantly associated
with large effect sizes. These could be
grounded in the successful Olweus programme.
8) )1#.3FG-&-*/3)'&'(H.-.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
programmes should be carried out to
investigate how much money is saved for the
money spent.
8) )6-.-'%27)/.)'(.#)&--4-4)3#)4-A-(#<)'&4)3-.3)
better theories of bullying and victimisation
as a basis for new intervention programmes.
References
+&'&/'4#$)^)K)O:/37)5^)B=>>=D)E-,'()%-[$/%-:-&3.)'&4)
nationally circulated materials against school bullying in
European countries. Criminal Justice 2)P_ gP? Q)
+&4%-#$)c0)`/4'.R'(#$)c)K)9('27#$)+)B=>>_D)cA'($'3/&,)
37-)-**-23/A-&-..)#*)')2$%%/2$($:FG'.-4)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
intervention programme in Greek primary schools.
Educational Psychology 27)a?!g_ Q
C'(4%H)+1)K)L'%%/&,3#&)`5)B=>>_D)c**-23/A-&-..)#*)
programmes to prevent school bullying. Victims and
Offenders 2) M!g=>PQ)
C'$-%)dO0)E#\'&#)5)K)6/A'%')L5)B=>>_D)J7-)-**-23/A-&-..)
of the Olweus bullying prevention programme in public
middle schools: a controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent
Health 40)=aag=_PQ)
c%3-.A',)O^)K)9''('&4)kO)B=>>_D)5%-A-&3/#&)'&4)
reduction of behavioural problems in school: an evaluation
of the Respect programme. Educational Psychology 27
_ !g_!aQ
L'%%/&,3#&)`5)B ??!D)i&4-%.3'&4/&,)'&4)<%-A-&3/&,)
G$((H/&,Q);&V)])J#&%H)Bc4D)Crime and Justice)BA#($:-) _DQ)
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
L'%%/&,3#&)`5)B=>>?D)1#&4$23)4/.#%4-%0)',,%-../#&)'&4)
4-(/&[$-&2HQ);&V)E-%&-%)6])K)O3-/&G-%,)E)Bc4.D)Handbook
of Adolescent Psychology)B!%4)-4/3/#&DQ)b#G#R-&0)d"V)U/(-H)
(in press).
L'%%/&,3#&)`5)K)U-(.7)C1)B=>>!D)L':/(HFG'.-4)
<%-A-&3/#&)#*)#**-&4/&,V)'):-3'F'&'(H./.Q)Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology 36) =_g W Q
L-%,$.#&)1"0)]/,$-()1O0)^/(G$%&)"1)K)O'&27-\)5)
B=>>_D)J7-)-**-23/A-&-..)#*).27##(FG'.-4)'&3/FG$((H/&,)
<%#,%'::-.V)'):-3'F'&'(H3/2)%-A/-NQ)Criminal Justice
Review 32)P> gP PQ)
=!
 U7'3)N#%R.)/&)<%-A-&3/&,)G$((H/&,V)-**-23/A-)-(-:-&3.)#*)'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-.
"#((/**-)`)K)L'%%/&,3#&)`5)B=>>_D)A rapid evidence assessment
of the impact of mentoring on reoffending. Home Office Online
6-<#%3) e>_Q)E#&4#&V)b#:-)Y**/2-Q)+A'/('G(-)*%#:V)
7#:-#**/2-Q,#AQ$Re%4.e<4*.>_e)%4.#(% >_Q<4*Q)
^':/&.R/)"U0)9'((-)E+0)L/(-&-)"b)K)C#H(-)1l)B=>>MD)+)
:-3'F'&'(H3/2)%-A/-N)#*)2#:<#&-&3.)'..#2/'3-4)N/37)<'%-&3)
training programme effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology 36)Wa_gWM?Q)
E/<.-H)]U)K)U/(.#&)`C)B=>> D)Practical Meta-Analysis.
J7#$.'&4)Y'R.0)1+V)O',-Q)
E/33-(()"b0)1#%2#%'&)")K)5/(('/)9)B=>>MD)Systematic Reviews
And Meta-Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Y(N-$.)`)B ??!D)Bullying at School: What We know and
What We Can Do. Oxford: Blackwell.
Y(N-$.)`)B=>>PD)J7-)Y(N-$.)C$((H/&,)5%-A-&3/#&)
Programme: design and implementation issues and a new
&'3/#&'()/&/3/'3/A-)/&)d#%N'HQ);&V)5^)O:/370)`)5-<(-%)
& K Rigby (Eds) Bullying in Schools: How successful can
interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Y(N-$.)`)B=>>WD)+)$.-*$()-A'($'3/#&)4-./,&0)'&4)-**-23.)
of the Olweus bullying prevention programme. Psychology
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.
Crime and Law 11)!M?gP>=Q)
Y%3-,')60)`-(F6-H)6)K)]#%'F]-%27'&)"+)B=>>PD)O+9c)
]#4-(V)'&)'&3/G$((H/&,)/&3-%A-&3/#&)/&)O<'/&Q);&V)5^)
O:/370)`)5-<(-%)K)^)6/,GH)Bc4.D)Bullying in Schools:
How successful can interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
5-<(-%)`0)O:/37)5^)K)6/,GH)^)B=>>PD)E##R/&,)G'2R)'&4)
looking forward: implications for making interventions
N#%R)-**-23/A-(HQ);&V)5^)O:/370)`)5-<(-%)K)^)6/,GH)
(Eds) Bullying In Schools: How successful can interventions be?
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5-33/2%-N)])K)6#G-%3.)b)B=>>aD)Systematic Reviews in the
Social Sciences: A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell.
6'.R'$.R'.)")B=>>_D)Evaluation of the Kia Kaha Anti-
Bullying Programme for Students in Years 5Ð8. Report
<%-<'%-4)*#%)37-)d-N)m-'('&4)5#(/2-0)U-((/&,3#&0)d-N)
m-'('&4Q
6/,GH)^)B=>>=D)A Meta-evaluation of Methods and
Approaches to Reducing Bullying in Preschools and Early
Primary School in AustraliaQ)1'&G-%%'V)+33#%&-H)k-&-%'(I.)
Department, Crime Prevention Branch.
O'(:/A'((/)1)B ???D)5'%3/2/<'&3)%#(-)'<<%#'27)3#).27##()
bullying: implications for interventions. Journal of
Adolescence 22)PW!gPW?Q
O'(:/A'((/)10)^'%&')+)K)5#.R/<'%3')c)B=>>?D)L%#:)<--%)
putdowns to peer support: a theoretical model and how it
3%'&.('3-4)/&3#)')&'3/#&'()'&3/FG$((H/&,)<%#,%'::-Q);&V)O^)
"/:-%.#&0)O])ON-'%-%)K)`E)c.<-(',-)Bc4.D)International
Handbook of School BullyingQ)]'7N'70)d"V)c%(G'$:)B/&)<%-..DQ
=P "#$%&'()#*)+,,%-../#&0)1#&*(/23)'&4)5-'2-)6-.-'%27))8))9#($:-) );..$-) ))8))+<%/()=>>?)@)5'A/(/#&)"#$%&'(.)BC%/,73#&D)E34
O'(:/A'((/)10)^'$R/'/&-&)+)K)9#-3-&)])B=>>WD)+&3/F
bullying intervention: implementation and outcome.
British Journal of Educational Psychology 75)PaWgPM_Q
O:/37)"`0)O27&-/4-%)C0)O:/37)5^)K)+&'&/'4#$)^)
B=>>PD)J7-)-**-23/A-&-..)#*)N7#(-F.27##()'&3/FG$((H/&,)
programmes: a synthesis of evaluation research. School
Psychology Review 33)WPMgWa Q)
O:/37)5^)K)+&'&/'4#$)^)B=>>!D)J7-)&'3$%-)#*).27##()
G$((H/&,)'&4)37-)-**-23/A-&-..)#*).27##(FG'.-4)/&3-%A-&3/#&.Q)
Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies 5) M?g=>?Q)
O:/37)5^0)+&'&/'4#$)^)K)1#N/-)b)B=>>!D);&3-%A-&3/#&.)
to reduce school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
48)W? gW??Q)
O:/37)5^0)]#%/3')"0)"$&,-%FJ'.)`0)Y(N-$.)`0)1'3'('&#)
6)K)O(--)5J)Bc4.D)B ???D)The Nature Of School Bullying: A
cross-national perspective. London: Routledge.
O:/37)5^0)5-<(-%)`)K)6/,GH)^)Bc4.D)B=>>P'D)Bullying
in Schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
O:/37)5^0)O7'%<)O0)c.(-')])K)J7#:<.#&)`)B=>>PGD)
c&,('&4V)J7-)O7-**/-(4)5%#X-23Q);&V)5^)O:/370)`)5-<(-%)
& K Rigby (Eds) Bullying In Schools: How successful can
interventions be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J3#*/)]])K)L'%%/&,3#&)`5)B=>>M'D)C$((H/&,V).7#%3F3-%:)
'&4)(#&,F3-%:)-**-23.0)'&4)37-)/:<#%3'&2-)#*)4-*/'&2-)
theory in explanation and prevention. Victims and Offenders
3)=M?g! =Q)
J3#*/)]])K)L'%%/&,3#&)`5)B=>>MGD)6-/&3-,%'3/A-)
shaming theory, moral emotions and bullying. Aggressive
Behaviour 34)!W=g!aMQ
J3#*/)]]0)L'%%/&,3#&)`5)K)C'(4%H)+1)B=>>MD)Effectiveness
of Programmes to Reduce School Bullying: A systematic
reviewQ)O3#2R7#(:V)ON-4/.7)d'3/#&'()1#$&2/()*#%)1%/:-)
Prevention. Available from www.bra.se.
9%--:'&)61)K)1'%%#(()+c)B=>>_D)+).H.3-:'3/2)%-A/-N)#*)
.27##(FG'.-4)/&3-%A-&3/#&.)3#)<%-A-&3)G$((H/&,Q)Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 161)_MgMMQ)
U-(.7)C10)L'%%/&,3#&)`5)K)O7-%:'&)EU)Bc4.D)B=>> D)
Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
U7/3&-H);0)6/A-%.);0)O:/37)5^)K)O7'%<)O)B ??PD)J7-)
O7-**/-(4)5%#X-23V)]-37#4#(#,H)'&4)*/&4/&,.Q);&V)5^)O:/37)
K)O)O7'%<)Bc4.D)School Bullying: Insights and perspectives.
London: Routledge.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Gerine M. A. Lodder, Ron H. J. Scholte, Antonius H. N. Cillessen, Matteo Giletta. 2016. Bully Victimization: Selection and
Influence Within Adolescent Friendship Networks and Cliques. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45, 132-144. [CrossRef]
2. Marci Feldman Hertz, Sherry Everett Jones, Lisa Barrios, Corinne David-Ferdon, Melissa Holt. 2015. Association Between
Bullying Victimization and Health Risk Behaviors Among High School Students in the United States. Journal of School
Health 85:10.1111/josh.2015.85.issue-12, 833-842. [CrossRef]
3. Sigrun K. Ertesvåg. 2015. Improving anti-bullying initiatives: The role of an expanded research agenda. Journal of Educational
Change 16, 349-370. [CrossRef]
4. Susan Kerrigan, Leo Berkeley, Sean Maher, Michael Sergi, Alison Wotherspoon. 2015. Screen production enquiry: a study
of five Australian doctorates. Studies in Australasian Cinema 9, 93-109. [CrossRef]
5. Tim R. Johnston. 2015. Affirmation and Care: A Feminist Account of Bullying and Bullying Prevention. Hypatia 30:10.1111/
hypa.2015.30.issue-2, 403-417. [CrossRef]
6. Hannah J. Thomas, Jason P. Connor, James G. Scott. 2015. Integrating Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying: Challenges
of Definition and Measurement in Adolescents – a Review. Educational Psychology Review 27, 135-152. [CrossRef]
7. Kristi Kõiv. 2015. Changes Over a Ten-year Interval in the Prevalence of Teacher Targeted Bullying. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 171, 126-133. [CrossRef]
8. Sigrun K. Ertesvåg, Erling Roland. 2014. Professional cultures and rates of bullying. School Effectiveness and School Improvement
1-20. [CrossRef]
9. Karen E. Herne. 2014. ‘It’s the parents’: re-presenting parents in school bullying research. Critical Studies in Education 1-17.
[CrossRef]
10. Leonidas Kyriakides, Bert P. M. Creemers, Dona Papastylianou, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou. 2014. Improving the School
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.

Learning Environment to Reduce Bullying: An Experimental Study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 58, 453-478.
[CrossRef]
11. Scott Menard, Jennifer K. Grotpeter. 2014. Evaluation of Bully-Proofing Your School as an Elementary School Antibullying
Intervention. Journal of School Violence 13, 188-209. [CrossRef]
12. Michael W. Baly, Dewey G. Cornell, Peter Lovegrove. 2014. A LONGITUDINAL INVESTIGATION OF SELF- AND
PEER REPORTS OF BULLYING VICTIMIZATION ACROSS MIDDLE SCHOOL. Psychology in the Schools 51:10.1002/
pits.2014.51.issue-3, 217-240. [CrossRef]
13. References 801-954. [CrossRef]
14. Jonathan CohenChapter 2 Effective Bullying Prevention Efforts and School Climate Reform . [CrossRef]
15. Susan P. LimberChapter 7 Best Practices in the Prevention of Bullying: An Example of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program . [CrossRef]
16. Brett Fuller, Kim Gulbrandson, Beth Herman-Ukasick. 2013. Bully Prevention in the Physical Education Classroom.
Strategies 26, 3-8. [CrossRef]
17. M. Arbesman, S. Bazyk, S. M. Nochajski. 2013. Systematic Review of Occupational Therapy and Mental Health Promotion,
Prevention, and Intervention for Children and Youth. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 67, e120-e130. [CrossRef]
18. Peter J. Lovegrove, Amy D. Bellmore, Jennifer Greif Green, Kathryn Jens, Jamie M. Ostrov. 2013. “My Voice Is Not Going
to Be Silent”: What Can Parents Do About Children’s Bullying?. Journal of School Violence 12, 253-267. [CrossRef]
19. Anna Lacey, Dewey Cornell. 2013. The Impact of Teasing and Bullying on Schoolwide Academic Performance. Journal of
Applied School Psychology 29, 262-283. [CrossRef]
20. Robin M. Kowalski, Susan P. Limber. 2013. Psychological, Physical, and Academic Correlates of Cyberbullying and Traditional
Bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 53, S13-S20. [CrossRef]
21. Dan Olweus. 2013. School Bullying: Development and Some Important Challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9,
751-780. [CrossRef]
22. Mandy Grumm, Sascha Hein, Michael Fingerle. 2013. Improving prevention programs: first results on the relation between
subjectively perceived levels of usefulness and social competencies. European Journal of Psychology of Education 28, 121-131.
[CrossRef]
23. Jong-Hyo Park. 2013. Exploration of Student and School Factors Influencing on Bullying Victimization. Asian Journal of
Education 14, 69-95. [CrossRef]
24. Laura J. Wernick, Alex Kulick, Marita H. Inglehart. 2013. Factors predicting student intervention when witnessing anti-
LGBTQ harassment: The influence of peers, teachers, and climate. Children and Youth Services Review 35, 296-301.
[CrossRef]
 25. Eve M. Brank, Lori A. Hoetger, Katherine P. Hazen. 2012. Bullying. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8, 213-230.
[CrossRef]
26. Dan Olweus. 2012. Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon?. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 9, 520-538.
[CrossRef]
27. Christine Blain-Arcaro, J. David Smith, Charles E. Cunningham, Tracy Vaillancourt, Heather Rimas. 2012. Contextual
Attributes of Indirect Bullying Situations That Influence Teachers' Decisions to Intervene. Journal of School Violence 11,
226-245. [CrossRef]
28. Rosalind Murray-Harvey, Grace Skrzypiec, Phillip T. Slee. 2012. Effective and Ineffective Coping With Bullying Strategies
as Assessed by Informed Professionals and Their Use by Victimised Students. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling
22, 122-138. [CrossRef]
29. Leanne Lester, Donna Cross, Thérèse Shaw, Julian Dooley. 2012. Adolescent bully-victims: Social health and the transition
to secondary school. Cambridge Journal of Education 42, 213-233. [CrossRef]
30. Ingri Myklestad, Espen Røysamb, Kristian Tambs. 2012. Risk and protective factors for psychological distress among
adolescents: a family study in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 47, 771-782.
[CrossRef]
31. Donna Cross, Stacey Waters, Natasha Pearce, Thérèse Shaw, Margaret Hall, Erin Erceg, Sharyn Burns, Clare Roberts, Greg
Hamilton. 2012. The Friendly Schools Friendly Families programme: Three-year bullying behaviour outcomes in primary
school children. International Journal of Educational Research 53, 394-406. [CrossRef]
32. Isabel Cuadrado Gordillo. 2011. Divergence in aggressors' and victims' perceptions of bullying: A decisive factor for differential
psychosocial intervention. Children and Youth Services Review 33, 1608-1615. [CrossRef]
33. Michael W. Baly, Dewey G. Cornell. 2011. Effects of an Educational Video on the Measurement of Bullying by Self-Report.
Journal of School Violence 10, 221-238. [CrossRef]
34. Anne Powell Williford, Daniel Brisson, Kimberly A. Bender, Jeffrey M. Jenson, Shandra Forrest-Bank. 2011. Patterns of
Jnl Aggress Conflict Peace Res 2009.1:13-24.

Aggressive Behavior and Peer Victimization from Childhood to Early Adolescence: A Latent Class Analysis. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence 40, 644-655. [CrossRef]
35. Darrick Jolliffe, David P. Farrington. 2011. Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling for individual and social
background variables?. Journal of Adolescence 34, 59-71. [CrossRef]
36. Alice Rubin-Vaughan, Debra Pepler, Steven Brown, Wendy Craig. 2011. Quest for the Golden Rule: An effective social skills
promotion and bullying prevention program. Computers & Education 56, 166-175. [CrossRef]
37. Donna Tangen, Marilyn Campbell. 2010. Cyberbullying Prevention: One Primary School's Approach. Australian Journal of
Guidance and Counselling 20, 225-234. [CrossRef]
38. L. Arseneault, L. Bowes, S. Shakoor. 2010. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about
nothing’?. Psychological Medicine 40, 717. [CrossRef]
39. Dan Olweus, Susan P. Limber. 2010. Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 80, 124-134. [CrossRef]
40. David P. Farrington, Maria M. Ttofi. 2009. How to Reduce School Bullying. Victims & Offenders 4, 321-326. [CrossRef]