Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

ISSN: 1092-6771 (Print) 1545-083X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wamt20

Trauma-Informed Methods to Enhance School-

Based Bullying Prevention Initiatives: An Emerging
Model

Lisa V. Blitz & Youjung Lee

To cite this article: Lisa V. Blitz & Youjung Lee (2015) Trauma-Informed Methods to Enhance
School-Based Bullying Prevention Initiatives: An Emerging Model, Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 24:1, 20-40, DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2015.982238

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.982238

Published online: 30 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 573

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wamt20

Download by: [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] Date: 12 January 2016, At: 01:14

 Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24:20–40, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1092-6771 print/1545-083X online
DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2015.982238

Trauma-Informed Methods to Enhance

School-Based Bullying Prevention Initiatives:
An Emerging Model

LISA V. BLITZ and YOUJUNG LEE

Department of Social Work, College of Community and Public Affairs, Binghamton
University, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York, USA
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

This article describes an emerging model of trauma-informed sup-

ports for school climate and bullying prevention developed through
a social research design and development approach. Student sur-
vey data were used to inform program design. The study was
conducted as part of baseline data collection for a federal Safe
Schools/Healthy Students grant awarded to a cooperative group
of 10 school districts in upstate New York. A local university part-
nered with the cooperative to design an innovative program model
to enhance bullying prevention and provide social-emotional and
mental health supports for students. In addition to descriptive
data, findings from multinomial logistic regression analyses are
provided to understand the relative influence of the independent
variables on the students’ report of bully–aggressor behavior and
victim–bystander experiences.

KEYWORDS bullying, Safe Schools/Healthy Students, sanctuary

model, school climate, toxic stress, trauma-informed, victim/
bystander

Numerous studies have demonstrated that bullying is a significant problem

in schools. Bullying is often understood as physical or psychological abuse
of an individual that takes place over time with the intent to exert power and
domination, creating an ongoing pattern of harassment and abuse (Whitted
& Dupper, 2005). Using this definition, about 23% of children are impacted

Received 11 July 2013; revised 20 February 2014; accepted 10 March 2014.

Address correspondence to Lisa V. Blitz, College of Community and Public Affairs,
Binghamton University, State University of New York, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902.
E-mail: lblitz@binghamton.edu

20
 Trauma-Informed Methods 21

(Limber, Olweus, & Luxenberg, 2013). When violence and harassment are
considered without the requirement of an ongoing pattern, prevalence rates
have been noted as high as 55% (Gan et al., 2014). In addition to face-to-
face bullying, students are increasingly involved in cyberbullying (Patchin &
Hunduja, 2011). Cyberbullying can take place via multiple electronic means,
so the youth can be victimized anywhere at any time, including at home.
Thus, bullying can spill over into home life, and many youth get little relief
from the threat and provocation involved. Adding to this concern, family vul-
nerability has been linked with increased involvement in bullying (Veenstra
et al., 2005), indicating that some children might have few, if any, safe
respites from stress.
Developed through a social research design and development approach,
this article describes an emerging model of trauma-informed interventions for
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

both school climate and bullying prevention initiatives. Student survey data
were used to inform program design and data analysis revealed differences
in students’ social-emotional vulnerabilities when comparing school popu-
lations based on the dimensions of poverty, out-of-school suspensions, and
residential mobility. Students in schools with higher rates in at least two of
these three areas were more likely to report that they engaged in bully–
aggressor behavior and were also more likely to be victims or bystanders
of bullying. Additionally, students in these schools reported more concerns
with their emotional well-being, more negative perceptions of school prob-
lems, and other indicators of vulnerability. Trauma-informed supports are
recommended to address the social-emotional and mental health needs of
vulnerable students and to promote a healthy school climate for all students.

BULLYING, MENTAL HEALTH, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

Different types of involvement in bullying have been identified, including the

bully who acts as the aggressor, the bully/victim who retaliates or attempts to
defend against bullying by bullying others, the victim or target of the aggres-
sion, and the bystanders who witness the dynamic (McNamee & Mercurio,
2008; Pollastri, Cardemil, & O’Donnell, 2010; Sekol & Farrington, 2010). The
term victim/bystander has also been used to describe youth who are filled
with fear and anxiety as a result of witnessing bullying (Jordan & Austin,
2012).
The impact of bullying on mental health is significant. Children’s
thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes about themselves, as well as their social
competence, externalizing and internalizing behaviors, and peer status are
influenced by involvement in bullying (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, &
Sadek, 2010). Bullies, bully/victims, and victims have all be found to have
higher rates of suicidal ideation and behavior than youth not involved in
bullying (Espelage & Holt, 2013). There is evidence that the negative impact
 22 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

of bullying is long term (Smokowski & Holland Kopasz, 2005), and might
last into adulthood (Wolke, Copeland, Angold, & Costello, 2013). Indicators
of serious mental health issues, such as a relationship between bully per-
petration and animal cruelty (Pearl et al., 2011), have been demonstrated.
Children who are bully/victims have been shown to be more prone to psy-
chiatric disorders than children not involved in bullying (Arseneault, Bowes,
& Shakoor, 2010) and might suffer the worst long-lasting effects (Copeland,
Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). As a result of bullying, victims might suf-
fer agoraphobia, generalized anxiety, and panic disorder (Copeland et al.,
2013). Bystanders are also affected. Witnessing bullying at school has been
found to have a serious impact on mental health and predicted higher levels
of substance use (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009), adding support to
the concept of the victim/bystander.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

Safety is a primary issue in the bullying dynamic, and is directly related

to school climate. School climate, understood as the degree of respect and
fair treatment students receive from school personnel as well as students’
sense of belonging to their school, has been shown to be a predictor for
involvement in bullying (Cook et al., 2010). Students and school staff who
experience bullying report a lower sense of safety and belonging, and are
also more likely to witness bullying (Waasdorp, Pas, O’Brennan, & Bradshaw,
2011), which is then related to an increase in attitudes that support aggres-
sive retaliation. Children involved in bullying report significantly more staff
maltreatment than other students, with bully/victims reporting the highest
rates, followed by bullies, and then victims (Khoury-Kassabri, 2009). The
staff maltreatment described by Khoury-Kassabri included emotional abuse
(i.e., being humiliated, cursed at, or called names) and physical aggression
(i.e., being grabbed, shoved, pinched, or slapped), experiences of which
can impact the sense of safety and the degree of connection a student feels
with school. Students who do not feel connected to school report more
experiences of all forms of victimization (O’Brennan & Furlong, 2010).
Veenstra and colleagues (2005) found that all children involved in bul-
lying were more disliked than children who were not involved. This finding
has important implications for school climate because children who are not
liked or who do not like others at school might perceive school more
negatively. When students think of their school climate as negative, high
self-esteem in students has predicted higher levels of bullying (Gendron,
Williams, & Guerra, 2011). This finding is consistent with findings that bul-
lies enjoyed high social standing among their classmates (Garandeau, Lee, &
Salmivalli, 2014). High social standing is not the same as being liked, but per-
ceived social rewards for bullying behavior can precipitate further bullying.
Thus, if school climate is perceived as negative, children who bully might feel
good about themselves and be held in high regard by other children—who
do not necessarily like them—and all—bully, victim, and bystanders—could
be simultaneously suffering with mental health issues.
 Trauma-Informed Methods 23

CHILD TOXIC STRESS, POVERTY, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE

School climate must be viewed in the context of the students’ family and
community experiences because children arrive at school socially and emo-
tionally affected by their environment. Family and home environment have
been linked to involvement in bullying (Cook et al., 2010), and children
who live in poverty are particularly vulnerable, as they are likely to have
higher exposure to a range of stressors. Among the stressors for children
who live in poverty is greater exposure to community violence, which has
been linked to greater psychological distress (Wilson, Spenciner Rosenthal,
& Battle, 2007), and higher levels of aggressive behavior in youth (Goodearl,
Salzinger, & Rosario, 2014).
Findings related to the mental health consequences of exposure to vio-
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

lence are consistent with what is understood about toxic stress, the strong,
frequent, or prolonged activation of the body’s stress management system
(National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2005), and its impact
on brain development. Toxic stress has been associated with low socioeco-
nomic status (SES; Szanton, Gill, & Allen, 2005), indicating that the stressors
children who live in poverty face impact their development, stress response,
and perceptions of others. Any child managing very high levels of daily
stress will carry this emotional burden to school in some form, and when
a school has many children with such a burden, school climate can be
impacted.
Exposure to toxic stressors can become biologically embedded, influ-
encing behavior, social relationships, and academic performance (Odgers
& Jaffee, 2013). Toxic stress can damage the formation of the neural con-
nections altering the brain architecture in early childhood development,
causing the child’s stress-response system to be overly sensitive to stimuli
(Shonkoff & Garner, 2012). Negative experiences in childhood contribute
to changes in allostasis, the biological systems responsible for maintaining
physiological stability during environmental changes (Danese & McEwen,
2012). Behaviors that might originate as protective or adaptive responses
to enduring stress can become problematic, resulting in deficits in atten-
tion, impulsivity, hyperactivity, conduct problems, and antisocial behavior
(Danese & McEwen, 2012). Toxic stress can contribute to cognitive and learn-
ing challenges (Cortiella, 2009), impairment in executive functioning (Center
on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011), and poor attention
and concentration (Gutteling et al., 2006).

SYSTEMIC CHANGE FOR SCHOOLS

The damage of toxic stress is caused by prolonged adversity in the absence of

a supportive network of adults that help the child adapt (Shonkoff & Garner,
 24 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

2012). Schools with higher concentrations of families with low SES might be
serving families with high levels of toxic stress where loving parents are still
unable to adequately protect their children. It is therefore incumbent on the
schools to provide that supportive network, where all adults in the build-
ing take responsibility to respond to bullying issues (McNamee & Mercurio,
2008) and reduce the impact of stress. It is important to approach school
climate from an ecological perspective (Jordan & Austin, 2012), understand-
ing that bullying occurs in the context of individual characteristics; actions
and interactions of peers, teachers, and other adult caretakers at school;
family factors and cultural characteristics; and community factors (Swearer &
Doll, 2001). Thus, the target of change is school climate in the context of its
community and constituent families.
The ecological perspective supports an interdisciplinary approach to
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

bullying prevention, where parents and community-based youth-serving

organizations work together with the school, which is suggested as a
method of enhancing protective factors for youth exposed to high stress
(Barroso et al., 2008). Parental and peer support are both positively corre-
lated with one another, and negatively correlated with depressive symptoms
in youth victimized by bullying (Papafratzeskakou, Kim, Longo, & Riser,
2011). Support from teachers, classmates, and parents can also improve
school satisfaction and academic success and indirectly influence students’
life satisfaction (Danielsen, Samdal, Hetland, & Wold, 2009). School-wide bul-
lying prevention programs focused on systems change have proven effective
(Olweus & Limber, 2010) and other initiatives have moved toward includ-
ing school personnel in the process of identifying and responding to trauma
(Baum, 2005; Young, Mancuso, Faherty, Dorman, & Umbrell, 2008). Blending
the essential components of bullying prevention and stress reduction through
trauma-informed methods could be an important and innovative way to sup-
port youth development and school success in schools serving families living
in poverty.

THIS STUDY

This study was conducted as part of baseline data collected for evaluation of
a federal Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant that was awarded to a coop-
erative group of 10 school districts in upstate New York. The baseline data
were collected during the spring of 2010, with services beginning the fol-
lowing fall. A local university partnered with the school district cooperative
to design an innovative program model and provide services to enhance
social-emotional and mental health supports for students. A social research
design and development approach was used so that program design would
be informed by the analysis and interpretation of the data. What follows are
the findings from the student surveys and a description of how the data were
 Trauma-Informed Methods 25

used to design trauma-informed supports for school climate and bullying

prevention initiatives.
Many of the questions used in this survey were based on the School
Climate Survey for Students (U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, & U.S. Department of Justice, 2012) and
adapted to local needs by the university partner in collaboration with school
district administrators and community stakeholders. The survey was designed
to assess school safety and climate, including the number of physical fights
on school grounds and the number of days absent from school due to per-
ceived safety issues; social, emotional, and behavioral supports available to
students; mental health supports in the school and community; and students’
emotional well-being. The questionnaires for students in seventh grade and
above also contained questions about substance use.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

METHODS
Sample and Participants
Data presented here were taken from 8 of the 10 districts; one was excluded
because it focused only on students with special educational and serious
mental health needs and another was unable to participate in the baseline
data collection. The survey was of students from 32 elementary and middle
schools that varied in socioeconomics and geography. The project included
one urban and two semiurban districts with significant poverty and incidents
of community violence and crime. Three of the districts were suburban,
and were more financially stable communities. Two of the districts were in
rural communities, and struggled with poverty and limited community-based
resources.

Demographic Variables
The survey was distributed in classrooms chosen at random, and approxi-
mately 25% of students in each school participated in the survey. Students’
gender and grade level were obtained. Race and ethnicity data were not col-
lected in this survey. The school districts represented ranged from rural and
suburban districts where over 95% of the students were White to the urban
district, in which approximately 43% of the students were students of color.

Measures
EMOTIONAL WELL - BEING

Four questions assessing students’ depressive symptoms were used to mea-

sure emotional well-being (i.e., “In the last 6 months, have you: Felt very
 26 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

sad for 2 weeks or longer?” “Hurt yourself on purpose?” “Felt hopeless for
2 weeks or longer?” “Felt you had problems too big to solve?”). The dichoto-
mous yes–no response options were provided and higher scores represent
lower emotional well-being of students. Cronbach alphas of the scores of the
students of fifth to sixth grade and seventh to eighth grade were .71 and .78,
respectively.

NUMBER OF PHYSICAL FIGHTS IN SCHOOL

Students were asked to report the number of physical fights that they had
in school during the past year. A 4-point Likert scale was provided (none,
1 time, 2 or 3 times, 4 or more times).
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

PERCEIVED SCHOOL PROBLEMS

Students reported the prevalence of disruptive school behaviors in their

schools. Five questions were included in the analysis (i.e., “In my school:
students kicking, hitting, punching, pushing, or wrestling each in anger is a
problem”; “students yelling and/or using foul language toward teachers or
staff is a problem”). A 3-point Likert scale was provided (not a problem, a
small problem, a big problem), with higher scores indicating greater prob-
lems, and Cronbach alphas of the scores of students of fifth to sixth grade
and seventh to eighth grade were .77 and .76, respectively.

ATTITUDES REGARDING SCHOOL BEHAVIOR

Eight questions measuring students’ perception of school behaviors (i.e., “It

is okay to make fun of and tease other people”; “It is okay to disrupt a
class or group project just for fun”) were included in this analysis. A 3-point
Likert scale was provided (no, maybe, yes) and the scores on the eight items
were summed to represent the students’ attitudes regarding school behavior.
Higher scores indicate more negative attitudes. Cronbach alphas of the scores
of students of fifth to sixth grade and seventh to eighth grade were .87 and
.88, respectively.

PERCEPTION OF PEER ATTITUDES REGARDING SCHOOL BEHAVIORS

Five questions asked the respondents’ opinion of other students’ attitudes

regarding acceptable school behaviors (i.e., “Many of the students in my
school believe that: physical fighting is okay; it is okay to cut classes or be
truant”). A 3-point Likert scale was provided (no, maybe, yes), with higher
scores indicating more negative perceptions of peer attitudes. Cronbach
alphas of the scores of students of fifth to sixth grade and seventh to eighth
grade were .87 and .92, respectively.
 Trauma-Informed Methods 27

ABSENCE RELATED TO SCHOOL SAFETY

Students were asked to report the number of times they had been absent in
the last 30 days because they did not feel safe in school or on their way to
or from school. A 5-point scale was provided (none, 1 day, 2 or 3 days, 4 or
5 days, 6 or more days).

PAST 30-DAY SUBSTANCE USE

Five questions about the use of substances in the last 30 days were asked to
seventh to eighth grade students (i.e., “In the last month at home, with your
friends, or at school, have you drank alcohol?” “Smoked marijuana?” “Used
other substances to get high?”). Yes–no response options were provided and
the Cronbach alpha of the variable was .83.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

BULLY–AGGRESSOR
Three questions regarding students’ report of aggression toward others were
included to measure bully–aggressor behavior (i.e., “In the last month at
your school, have you: said mean or threatening things to another student?”
“Made fun of other students, or insulted or teased them?”). These questions
do not capture the aspects of bullying that include patterns over time or
intention to dominate and exert power, but do assess hostile or threatening
behaviors that are part of bullying and contribute to negative school climate.
The dichotomous yes–no response options were provided to the three ques-
tions and the range of composite bully–aggressor scores ranged from 0 to 3.
The Cronbach alpha of the measure with fifth- to sixth-grade and seventh-
to eighth-grade students was .67 and .62, respectively. In the analysis of
multinomial logistic regression, the extent of bully–aggressor behavior is cat-
egorized as (a) no bullying behaviors (bully–aggressor score 0; reference
category), (b) moderate bullying behaviors (bully–aggressor score 1–2), and
(c) high bullying behaviors (bully–aggressor score 3).

VICTIM/BYSTANDER OF BULLYING

Three questions on students’ report of being victims or bystanders of

bullying were included (i.e., “In the last month at your school, have you
had someone bully, be mean, or threaten you at school?” “Had other
students make fun of you?” “Seen someone else be bullied, treated meanly,
or threatened at school?”). Although it is important to understand the
differences between the victims and bystanders of bullying for intervention,
the decision was made to combine the status of victim and bystander in
these analyses to understand school climate issues. Research has shown
that bystanders are negatively impacted by witnessing bullying behavior
(Rivers et al., 2009), and combining the two groups provided a way to
 28 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

understand the emotional vulnerability of students in the school. The

dichotomous yes–no response options were provided to the three questions
and the range of composite victim/bystander score ranged from 0 to 3.
The Cronbach alpha of the measure with fifth- to sixth-grade and seventh-
to eighth-grade students was .70 and .67, respectively. In the analysis,
the extent of being a victim/bystander of bullying is categorized as (a)
not a victim/bystander (victim/bystander score 0; reference category), (b)
moderate victim/bystander (victim/bystander score 1–2), and (c) serious
victim/bystander (victim/bystander score 3).

Statistical Analyses
SPSS 19 was used to analyze data. Descriptive data related to the level of bul-
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

lying others or being a victim/bystander of bullying were examined. Then,

multinomial logistic regression was employed to determine the relative influ-
ence of the independent variables on the students’ report of bully–aggressor
behavior and victim/bystander experiences of bullying. The reference groups
in these analyses were students who were not involved in bullying and
students who were not victims or bystanders of bullying.

RESULTS

Students from 32 schools (N = 2,176) were included in the analysis and

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the participants. In the analysis,
810 fifth-grade students, 499 sixth-grade students, 421 seventh-grade stu-
dents, and 446 eighth-grade students were included and 51.5% (n = 1,116) of
them were female. Relating to school safety, 13.8% (n = 300) of the students
reported that they had missed at least 1 day of school in the past 30 days
because they did not feel safe at school. Participation in at least one physical
fight on school grounds in last 30 days was reported by 28.3% (n = 615) of
the study participants; 15.4% (n = 334) of the students said yes or maybe it is
okay to cut classes or be truant from school; 18.6% (n = 266) of seventh- to
eighth-grade students reported they used at least one type of substance (i.e.,
alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or prescription drugs for recreation) in the past
30 days. Data on students’ emotional well-being show that in the previous
6 months, 26.1% (n = 567) felt very sad for 2 weeks or longer, 18% (n =
391) felt hopeless, and 26% (n = 572) felt they had problems too big to
solve. It was also notable that 11.3% (n = 245) of the students reported that
they had hurt themselves on purpose in the past 6 months.
With regard to aggressive or bullying behaviors, 41.7% (n = 459) of
female students and 52.9% (n = 552) of male students reported they had
engaged in bullying behavior against other students (Table 2). Bullying was
more prevalent among older students: 41.3% (n = 532) of fifth- to sixth-grade
 Trauma-Informed Methods 29

TABLE 1 Sample Characteristics

Variable n or M and SD % or range

Gender
Male 1,053 48.5%
Female 1,116 51.5%
Grade
5 810 37.2%
6 499 22.9%
7 421 19.3%
8 446 20.5%
Number of physical fights at school (past year)
None 1,557 71.7%
1 time 301 13.9%
2 or 3 times 181 8.3%
4 or more times 133 6.1%
= .81 (SD = 1.19)
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

Poor emotional well-being M 0–4

Perceived school problems M = 5.81 (SD = 2.61) 0–10
Attitudes regarding school behaviors M = 2.53 (SD = 3.56) 0–16
Peer attitudes regarding school behaviors M = 4.62 (SD = 3.32) 0–10
Absence related to school safety M = .24 (SD = .67) 0–3
Past 30 days substance use (7–8 grade only) M = .41 (SD = 1.04) 0–5
Note. N = 2,176.

TABLE 2 Number of Bully–Aggressor Behaviors by Age Group and Gender

5–6 grades 7–8 grades

n = 1,287 (%) n = 860 (%)

Females Males Females Males

n = 646 n = 641 n = 458 n = 402

No bullying behaviors 415 (64.2%) 340 (53.0%) 230 (50.2%) 151 (37.6%)
Moderate bullying behaviors 187 (28.9%) 230 (35.9%) 172 (37.6%) 165 (41.0%)
High bullying behaviors 44 (6.8%) 71 (11.1%) 56 (12.2%) 86 (21.4%)

students reported that they engaged in bullying behavior compared to 55.7%

(n = 479) of the seventh- to eighth-grade students (Table 2).
The pattern was different with regard to the issue of victims and
bystanders of bullying, where 81.7% (n = 904) of female students reported
that they were either victims or bystanders of bullying, compared to 78.1%
(n = 815) of male students (Table 3). Findings also showed that 79.7% (n =
1,030) of fifth- to sixth-grade students and 80.3% (n = 689) of seventh-
to eighth-grade students reported that they were victims or bystanders of
bullying (Table 3).

Multivariate Findings
The model for each of the two bully–aggressor categories (moderate bullying
behaviors and high bullying behaviors) was estimated to relate to the model
 30 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

TABLE 3 Extent of Victim/Bystander Exposure to Bullying by Age Group and Gender

5–6 grades 7–8 grades

n = 1,293 (%) n = 858 (%)

Female Males Female Male

n = 650 n = 643 n = 457 n = 401

Not victim/bystanders 112 (17.2%) 151 (23.5%) 91 (19.9%) 78 (19.4%)

Mild victim/bystanders 349 (53.7%) 341 (53.0%) 240 (52.5%) 210 (52.4%)
Serious victim/bystanders 189 (29.1%) 151 (23.5%) 126 (27.6%) 113 (28.2%)

TABLE 4 Predictors of Bully–Aggressor Behaviors among Fifth- to Sixth-Grade Students:

Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis Results

Moderate bullying High bullying

Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

Exp (B) CI Exp (B) CI

Gender (reference = female) 1.267 .968–1.656 1.307 .790–2.163

Grade (reference = sixth grade) 1.054 .798–1.393 1.339 .784–2.287
Poor emotional well-being 1.115 .984–1.263 1.278∗ 1.053–1.552
Physical fighting in school 1.705∗∗ 1.422–2.043 2.889∗∗ 2.251–3.708
Perceived school problems 1.037 .984–1.093 1.091 .991–1.202
Attitudes of school behaviors 1.113∗∗ 1.064–1.164 1.298∗∗ 1.219–1.382
Peer attitudes of school behaviors 1.022 .976–1.071 1.065 .974–1.163
Absence related to school safety 1.195 .942–1.514 1.077 .760–1.516
Note. N = 1,213. The reference group in this analysis was students who did not bully other students.
∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01, two-tailed test.

of students who did not bully others. The results in Table 4 show that, among
fifth- to sixth-grade students, the number of physical fights in school and the
attitude regarding school behaviors were significant across the two models.
Students who had more physical fights in school and had more negative
attitudes regarding school behaviors were likely to report moderate and high
bullying behaviors (Table 4).
More significant predictors of bullying behaviors were found among
seventh- to eighth-grade students. The seventh- to eighth-grade students
showed that they tended to report moderate and high bullying behaviors
when they were male, had more physical fights in school, had more neg-
ative attitudes regarding school behaviors, and had used substances more
frequently in the past 30 days (Table 5).
In the analysis of predictors of victim/bystanders of bullying, students
who were not victims or bystanders of bullying were treated as a reference
group. Among fifth- to sixth-grade students, children who were female, had
poorer emotional well-being, had more physical fights in school, perceived
more school problems, and more often reported that their peers had nega-
tive attitudes regarding school behavior tended to be moderate and serious
victim/bystanders of bullying (Table 6).
 Trauma-Informed Methods 31

TABLE 5 Predictors of Bully–Aggressor Behaviors among Seventh- to Eighth-Grade Students:

Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis Results

Moderate bullying High bullying

Exp (B) CI Exp (B) CI

Gender (reference = female) 1.551∗ 1.102–2.184 2.707∗∗ 1.648–4.449

Grade (reference = eighth grade) .956 .688–1.330 1.105 .687–1.777
Poor emotional well-being 1.207∗ 1.028–1.418 1.043 .840–1.294
Physical fighting in school 1.334∗ 1.045–1.702 1.531∗∗ 1.151–2.037
Perceived school problems 1.040 .966–1.121 1.122∗ 1.011–1.244
Attitudes of school behaviors 1.225∗∗ 1.135–1.321 1.361∗∗ 1.245–1.488
Peer attitudes of school behaviors 1.022 .967–1.081 1.043 .962–1.131
Absence related to school safety 1.024 .758–1.384 1.003 .695–1.447
Past 30-day substance use 1.595∗ 1.110–2.292 2.041∗∗ 1.397–2.982
Note. N = 814. The reference group in this analysis was students who were not involved in bullying.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01, two-tailed test.

TABLE 6 Predictors of Victim/Bystander Exposure to Bullying among Fifth- to Sixth-Grade

Students: Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis Results

Mild victim/bystanders Serious victim/

of bullying bystanders of bullying

Exp (B) CI Exp (B) CI

Gender (reference = female) .659∗ .477−.910 .524∗∗ .354−.777

Grade (reference = sixth grade) .982 .697−1.383 1.061 .704−1.600
Poor emotional well-being 1.562∗∗ 1.250−1.951 2.380∗∗ 1.881−3.011
Physical fighting in school 1.283∗ 1.004−1.640 1.726∗∗ 1.315−2.266
Perceived school problems 1.142∗∗ 1.073−1.215 1.308∗∗ 1.210−1.413
Attitudes of school behaviors .991 .938−1.048 .895∗∗ .836−.959
Peer attitudes of school behaviors 1.198∗∗ 1.120−1.281 1.276∗∗ 1.184−1.377
Absence related to school safety .910 .622−1.330 .929 .622−1.390
Note. N = 1,209. The reference group in this analysis was students who were not victims or bystanders
of bullying.
∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01, two-tailed test.

On the contrary, in the seventh- to eighth-grade group, although several

factors were associated with serious victim/bystander exposure, there was
only one significant predictor of being victim/bystanders of bullying across
the models. Students who perceived more school problems were more likely
to be moderate and serious victim/bystanders of bullying (Table 7).

Exploratory Findings: Differences in Schools

Because there were important differences in the communities served by
various schools, the analysis included an exploration of school climate
to determine if poverty, residential stability, and out-of-school suspension
rates were associated with differences in the study variables. Free and
reduced-price lunch was used as a measure of poverty, and recipients ranged
 32 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

TABLE 7 Predictors of Victim/Bystander Exposure to Bullying among Seventh- to Eighth-

Grade Students: Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis Results

Mild victims/bystanders Serious victims/

of bullying bystanders of bullying

Exp (B) CI Exp (B) CI

Gender (reference = female) 1.037 .691–1.556 1.658 1.023–2.673

Grade (reference = eighth grade) 1.036 .698–1.538 1.167∗ .734–1.856
Poor emotional well-being 1.295 .991–1.694 1.979∗∗ 1.499–2.612
Physical fighting in school 1.289 .937–1.773 1.444∗ 1.023–2.040
Perceived school problems 1.330∗∗ 1.214–1.457 1.386∗∗ 1.246–1.542
Attitudes of school behaviors 1.091∗ 1.002–1.187 .992 .901–1.092
Peer attitudes of school behaviors 1.008 .940–1.081 1.094∗ 1.009–1.186
Absence related to school safety 1.065 .664–1.706 1.786∗ 1.108–2.880
Past 30-day substance use 1.028 .759–1.392 .893 .636–1.255
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

Note. N = 812. The reference group in this analysis was students who were not involved in bullying.
∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01, two-tailed test.

from a low of 5% in a suburban school to 82% in an urban school. Residential

stability, referring to the proportion of students who remained at the school
during the entire school year, ranged from 70% in an urban school to 100%
in a suburban school. Out-of-school suspension rates were used as an indi-
cator of behavioral problems in the school, and ranged from 0% in several
suburban schools to 22% in an urban school. The schools were identified
as vulnerable if they met at least two of three criteria: free or reduced-price
lunch rate of 35% or above, stability rate of 94% or lower, and a suspension
rate of 5% or above. Based on these criteria, 16 of the schools were consid-
ered vulnerable, including all of the urban schools, six of seven semiurban
schools, and one rural school. Sixteen schools were considered stable, pri-
marily in the suburban areas and one rural district. The aggregated means of
the study variables in each school were computed and used for a compari-
son between vulnerable schools and stable schools (Table 8). Higher scores

TABLE 8 Differences between Vulnerable and Stable Schools: Comparison of Means of

Variables in Each School

Variable Vulnerable schools Stable schools

Poor emotional well-being .96 .64

Number of physical fights in school .57 .40
Perceived school problems 6.35 5.18
Attitudes regarding school behavior 3.05 1.93
Peer attitudes regarding school behaviors 5.16 3.99
Absence related to school safety .34 .12
Past 30-day substance use .43 .38
Bully–aggressor behaviors .99 .70
Victim/bystander of bullying 1.67 1.37
 Trauma-Informed Methods 33

indicate greater problems, and the vulnerable schools had higher scores in
each of the 10 variables. This measure was used to clarify important school
climate challenges that informed program design.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAM DESIGN

Results from this study confirm the significance of the problem of bully-
ing and the relationship among individual and school climate factors in
understanding how to approach the issue. Clearly, aggressive behavior and
bullying impacts the majority of students in this sample and many of the
individual factors related to bullying also impact school climate. Nearly half
the students reported having engaged in aggressive behavior, and about
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

80% reported either witnessing or being targeted by bullying or threatening

behavior from another student. In both groups, fifth- to sixth-grade students
and seventh- to eighth-grade students, the number of fights in school and
negative attitudes regarding school behavior were significant predictors of
engaging in bullying behavior, and gender and substance use were also
predictors for the seventh- to eighth-grade students. These findings support
the need for the promotion of nonviolence, character education, and sub-
stance abuse prevention as part of a school response to bullying. Fighting,
negative attitudes regarding school behaviors, and substance use were not
significant predictors of being victim/bystanders of bullying for either group,
however. Rather, students who perceived greater school problems reported
being moderate and serious victim/bystanders of bullying, reinforcing the
importance of a nurturing school climate for victim/bystanders of bullying.
The significance of targeting school climate when working with
victim/bystanders of bullying was reiterated with the fifth- to sixth-grade
results. Students from fifth to sixth grade with poor emotional well-being
tended to be moderate or serious victim/bystanders of bullying compared
to their reference group. Considering that this was a cross-sectional study,
it was not possible to ascertain whether students’ emotional well-being
affected their experiences as a victim/bystander of bullying in school or
whether being a victim/bystander affected the students’ emotional well-
being. Knowing that the two concepts are linked, however, supports the
need for a school-climate-focused approach that attends to the emotional
vulnerability of children in addition to individual interventions for students
in need.
Conceptually, the significant predictors of bully–aggressor behavior can
be understood as combinations of individual-level and school-level variables,
but the perception of school problems was the only school-level variable
contributing to school climate. The high number of students who reported
poor emotional well-being can also be understood as an indication of vulner-
ability for school climate, as children who are emotionally fragile or disturbed
 34 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

are likely to impact others in a variety of ways. These findings also reinforce
the need to attend to both individual and school climate factors in developing
the program.
For program design, recognizing that students from the vulnerable
schools had greater indicators of social, emotional, and behavioral prob-
lems was important, as these are the same children who were more likely
to be exposed to higher levels of stress in their homes and communities.
Children from the vulnerable schools reported bullying others more often,
were more likely to be victim/bystanders of bullying, and had lower emo-
tional well-being. Students in the vulnerable schools also had more negative
perceptions of peers, more fights, and more substance use, all of which high-
light individual need and negatively impact school climate. These findings
supported the need to incorporate an understanding of the neuro-hormonal
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

stress response and developmental impact of toxic stress into social work
services and bullying-prevention initiatives when developing services for the
vulnerable schools.

Designing Trauma-Informed School Climate and Bullying Prevention

The team designing the program and providing service consisted of three
licensed social workers and an experienced K–12 educator. The social work-
ers provided field instruction to 16 master’s of social work (MSW) interns,
each of whom provided direct services in the schools. The program was
developed in consultation with partners from the Department of Social Work
at a local university. Early discussions identified the need for a bullying pre-
vention approach that focused on school climate and systems change. As a
result, the educator became a certified trainer for the evidence-based Olweus
Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP; Olweus, 1994; Olweus & Limber, 2010)
and provided training to school personnel.
The initial phase of the program focused on training school-based teams
in OBPP across all districts served, and supported the implementation of the
program through a trauma-informed lens where appropriate. OBPP responds
to bullying as a school climate issue, with all school personnel pledging
responsibility to each child, and defines clear rules and interventions that
adults and students agree to follow. Parent and community involvement
is fundamental in OBPP, providing opportunities to promote practices of
peaceful climate beyond the school yard.
Professional development trainings on toxic stress and social-emotional
learning techniques drawn from Conscious Discipline (Bailey, 2001) were
provided to school social workers, guidance counselors, teachers, and OBPP
teams. Conscious Discipline integrates principles of classroom management,
emotional intelligence, and character education that have been found to
improve elementary school teachers’ perceptions of school climate and
student–teacher relationships (Hoffman, Hutchinson, & Reiss, 2009). The
 Trauma-Informed Methods 35

Conscious Discipline approach assumes children are motivated by caring,

connection, contribution, and feeling empowered through conflict resolution
rather than external rewards. The approach supports character education and
provides education on cognitive development, which provides a foundation
for understanding the impact of trauma and toxic stress.
The team’s social workers worked closely with school social workers
and with MSW interns to provide education on trauma-informed philosophy
and methods. The social workers and MSW interns provided school-based
individual and small group counseling to students, which supported sub-
stance abuse prevention, social-emotional learning, and character education.
The social work team also engaged families through community outreach
methods designed to reach families not involved in the schools’ traditional
parent groups, such as the parent–teacher association and booster clubs. The
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

focus of family engagement was to enhance communication and involvement

with the school to form effective family–school–community partnerships for
children’s education.

Trauma-Informed and Strengths-Based Assumptions

Clarifying basic trauma-informed and strengths-based assumptions was fun-
damental. Trauma-informed assumptions contextualize the youths’ behavior
as occurring within ongoing stress and intermittent traumatic events, such
as witnessing community or domestic violence. The team recognized the
importance of responding to a range of stressors, from those associated with
poverty to the microaggressions of racism, classism, or other oppressions,
and recognizing the impact of intergenerational or historical trauma. The
full social and relational experience of the child and family needed to be
understood and validated. The team defined strengths-based assumptions,
including the assumptions that all children want to learn and are naturally
curious; children want loving and trusting relationships; and parents love
their children and want the best for them. Most important, when a person’s
behavior is disruptive, a parent seems to not care, or a child appears to not
want to learn, the team’s assumption was that something has happened to
them, rather than the judgment that something is wrong with them.
It was crucial to recognize that trauma and toxic stress take place in the
context of relationships with people and within systems represented by peo-
ple. Healing, which engages a readiness to learn, must also take place in the
context of relationships. Common actions and interactions in the school can
trigger toxic stress reactions that disrupt learning. For example, a teacher’s
authoritative voice can trigger an unconscious memory or association with
violence, one student’s disruptive behavior can activate stress hormone reac-
tions in other students, or hearing that their child is in trouble can trigger
a heightened response in parents. From a trauma-informed perspective, the
“fight, flight, or freeze” reactions common in trauma or high-stress situations
 36 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

can be seen in bullying scenarios. A “bully” might be in emotional survival

mode, dominating others for self-protection. Bystanders to bullying might be
immobilized by the numbing or shutting-down process triggered by witness-
ing a threatening event. The targets of bullying might have few defenses and
be more vulnerable to victimization. If the children involved have not been
able to trust that adults will emotionally and physically protect them in the
past, they could be unlikely to trust school personnel, further heightening
the stress reaction.

Next Steps: Integrating Sanctuary

The next steps in program development involve integrating trauma-informed
methods in the vulnerable schools, working in tandem with the OBPP.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

School-based teams have been trained by a certified trainer and tasked with
training all other adults in the building and rolling out the program to the
students and families. OBPP teams, therefore, provide good vehicles for dis-
seminating information and creating school climate change. OBPP requires
regular classroom conversations with students focused on nonviolence and
character development, and provide a vehicle to discuss social-emotional
learning, such as anger management, anxiety regulation, and stress-reduction
techniques.
It was important to develop responses that can be easily incorporated
by teachers and other school staff who do not have backgrounds in mental
health. The sanctuary model (Bloom, 1997) was originally designed as an
inpatient treatment model for trauma survivors, but its key elements have
informed work in other systems and can be applied to schools (Bloom,
1995). The essential elements of sanctuary are (a) a democratic process for
communication and decision making, (b) an appreciation for the validity of
the multiple perspectives of all those involved, (c) the articulation of shared
assumptions about the mission and goals of the school, and (d) development
of a common language that directs the path to healing that can be linked with
existing school climate and bullying prevention work.
In the democratic approach, all members of the group have a voice,
respecting the different roles and responsibilities of each person. The views
and experiences of all are included, and no issue is fully understood unless
the multiple perspectives of all members are incorporated. Shared assump-
tions include understanding that troubles are often located in toxic stress and
that all members of the school and community have a responsibility to aid
the healing of overtaxed members. Parents are seen as allies and partners in
the healing and education process, with responsiveness to the fact that they
might also be struggling with the impact of toxic stress.
A common language provides ways to communicate shared goals and
ideas to school personnel, students, and family members. The sanctuary
model uses the acronym S.E.L.F. to identify four aspects of healing (McCorkle
 Trauma-Informed Methods 37

& Yanosy, 2007): safety, emotions, losses, and future. To adapt the S.E.L.F.
model to a school setting, some changes were proposed: safety, emotions,
learning, and family. Safety continues to be primary, with attention to the
physical, psychological, moral, and relational needs and protection of all
members of the school community. OBPP provides clear rules and proce-
dures for responding to violence and threat. To address emotions, techniques
that teach children and adults how to reduce stress reactions and become
focused in the present can be integrated into classroom management and
other routines to reduce the impact of toxic stress. For example, teachers can
teach students to practice deep breathing or stretching to help with relax-
ation and focus, and then use these techniques as part of transitions from
one content focus to another during class. To enhance readiness for learning,
teachers can incorporate an understanding of the impact of toxic stress into
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

teaching methods and the design of lesson plans, integrating social-emotional

learning across the curriculum. Active inclusion of family is crucial, and often
overlooked in school climate initiatives. Family members must be included as
part of the school community to develop multiple perspectives and shared
assumptions, and brought into the common language so learning can be
reinforced at home as social-emotional homework.

Limitations and Next Steps in Evaluation, Design, and Development

The survey used in this study relied exclusively on student self-report.
The reliability and validity of the measures were not tested with rigor.
Additionally, data on race and ethnicity were not collected, so there was
no way to measure whether relationships among variables varied by race
or ethnicity. As a cross-sectional study, this survey did not measure causal
relationships between the school climate factors and students’ emotional
well-being; a longitudinal study is needed to provide data that could better
understand these relationships.
To better articulate the emerging model of trauma-informed bullying
prevention, collaboration with school social workers, administrators, and
teachers is necessary to integrate sanctuary into their work. Evaluation of the
project is planned to determine whether trauma-informed methods increase
the effectiveness of OBPP and help to improve school climate. The goal
of the project is to support student success through strong attendance,
classroom engagement, active learning, and character development. Further
evaluation, to refine the design and development of the project, will help
movement toward the goal.

FUNDING

This study was funded by a federal Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant.

 38 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

REFERENCES

Arseneault, L., Bowes, L, & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and
mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychological Medicine,
40, 717–729. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991383
Bailey, B. A. (2001). Conscious Discipline: 7 basic skills for brain smart classroom
management. Oviedo, FL: Loving Guidance.
Barroso, C. S., Peters, R. J, Kelder, S., Conroy, J., Murray, N., & Orpinas, P. (2008).
Youth exposure to community violence: Association with aggression, victimiza-
tion, and risk behaviors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 17,
141–155.
Baum, N. L. (2005). Building resilience: A school-based intervention for children
exposed to ongoing trauma and stress. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, &
Trauma, 10, 487–498.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

Bloom, S. (1995). Creating sanctuary in the school. Journal for a Just and Caring
Education, 1, 403–433.
Bloom, S. (1997). Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2011). Building the brain’s
“air traffic control” system: How early experiences shape the development of exec-
utive function (Working Paper No. 11). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors
of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic
investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65–83.
Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E.J. (2013). Adult psychiatric
outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence.
JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 419–426. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504
Cortiella, C. (2009). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center
for Learning Disabilities.
Danese, A., & McEwen, B. S. (2012). Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis,
allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiology & Behavior, 106, 29–39.
Danielsen, A. G., Samdal, O., Hetland, J. & Wold, B. (2009). School-related social
support and students’ perceived life satisfaction. The Journal of Educational
Research, 102, 303–320.
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2013). Suicidal ideation and school bullying expe-
riences after controlling for depression and delinquency. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 53, S27–S31.
Gan, S. S., Zhong, C., Das, S., Gan, J. S., Willis, S., & Tully, E. (2014).
The prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying in high school: A 2011 sur-
vey. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 26, 27–31.
doi:10.1515/ijamh-2012-0106
Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality matters: Classroom
status hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
43, 1123–1133. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4
Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullying
among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative
beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10, 150–164.
 Trauma-Informed Methods 39

Goodearl, A. W., Salzinger, S., & Rosario, M. (2014). The association between vio-
lence exposure and aggression and anxiety: The role of peer relationships in
adaptation for middle school students. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34,
311–338. doi:10.1177/0272431613489372
Gutteling, B. M., Weerth, C., Zandbelt, N., Mulder, E. J. H., Visser, G. H. A., &
Buitelaarm, J. K. (2006). Does maternal prenatal stress adversely affect the
child’s learning and memory at age six? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
34, 789–798.
Hoffman, L. L., Hutchinson, C. J., & Reiss, E. (2009). On improving school climate:
Reducing reliance on rewards and punishment. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 5, 13–24.
Jordan, K., & Austin, J. (2012). A review of the literature on bullying in U.S.
schools and how a parent–educator partnership can be an effective way to
handle bullying. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 21, 440–458.
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

doi:10.1080/10926771.2012.675420
Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2009). The relationship between staff maltreatment of students
and bully-victim group membership. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 914–923.
Limber, S. P., Olweus, D., & Luxenberg, H. (2013). Bullying in U.S. schools,
2012 status report. Center City, MN: Hazelden Foundation.
McCorkle, D., & Yanosy, S. (2007). When loss gets lost: Using the S.E.L.F. model to
work with losses in residential treatment. In A. L. Vargas & S. L. Bloom (Eds.),
Loss hurt and hope: The complex issues of bereavement and trauma in children
(pp. 116–141). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
McNamee, A., & Mercurio, M. (2008). School-wide intervention in the childhood
bullying triangle. Childhood Education. 84, 370–377.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2005). Excessive stress disrupts
the architecture of the developing brain (Working Paper No. 3). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.net
O’Brennan, L. M., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). Relations between students’ perceptions
of school connectedness and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 9,
375–391.
Odgers, C. L., & Jaffee, S. R. (2013). Routine versus catastrophic influences on the
developing child. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 18.1–18.29.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and
an effective school-based intervention program. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.),
Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). New York, NY: Plenum.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissem-
ination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x
Papafratzeskakou, E., Kim, J., Longo, G. S., & Riser, D. K. (2011). Peer victimization
and depressive symptoms: Role of peers and parent–child relationship. Journal
of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 784–799.
Patchin, J. W., & Hunduja, S. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among
youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society. 43, 727–751. doi:10.1177/
0044118X10366951
Pearl, E., Barnes, J. E., Richey, L., Crouch, D., Barzman, D., & Putnam, F. W.
(2011). Childhood cruelty to animals: Psychiatric and demographic correlates.
 40 L. V. Blitz and Y. Lee

Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 20, 812–819. doi:10.1080/

10926771.2011.610773
Pollastri, A. R., Cardemil, E. V., & O’Donnell, E. H. (2010). Self-esteem in pure bullies
and bully/victims: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
1489–1502.
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school:
The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly,
24, 211–223.
Sekol, I., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). The overlap between bullying and victimization
in adolescent residential care: Are bully/victims a special category? Children
and Youth Services Review, 32, 1758–1769.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Garner, A. S. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adver-
sity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129, e232–246. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2663
Smokowski, P. R., & Holland Kopasz, K. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview
Downloaded by [Jyvaskylan Yliopisto] at 01:14 12 January 2016

of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children &

Schools, 27, 101–110.
Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework.
Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 7–23.
Szanton, S. L., Gill, J. M., & Allen, J. K. (2005). Allostatic load: A mechanism of
socioeconomic health disparities? Biological Research for Nursing 7, 7–15.
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, & U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). SS/HS national evaluation.
Retrieved from http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov/community/pdf/School_Climate_
Survey_Students_508.pdf
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel,
J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bul-
lies, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology,
41, 672–682.
Waasdorp, T. E., Pas, E. T., O’Brennan, L. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011). A multilevel
perspective on the climate of bullying: Discrepancies among students, school
staff, and parents. Journal of School Violence. 10, 115–132.
Whitted, K. S., & Dupper, D. R. (2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing
bullying in schools. Children & Schools, 27, 167–175.
Wilson, W. C., Spenciner Rosenthal, B., & Battle, W. S. (2007). Effects of gen-
der, ethnicity and educational status on exposure to community violence and
psychological distress in adolescence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 15, 93–111. doi:10.1300/J146v15n01_06
Wolke, D., Copeland, W. E., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Impact of bullying
in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological
Science, 24, 1958–1970. doi:10.1177/0956797613481608
Young, H. L., Mancuso, A. F., Faherty, E., Dorman, S. A., & Umbrell, J. R. (2008).
Helping child victims of family violence through school personnel: An evalua-
tion of a training program. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 16,
144–163. doi:10.1080/10926770801921386