A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying - FINAL JUNE 2014 PDF

Defining Bullying
A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian

research and academic community
A What Works for Kids Evidence Review

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research
and academic community
S.A. Hemphill, J.A. Heerde and R. Gomo
Prepared by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth for the Australian
Government Department of Education. The views expressed in this publication do not
necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government or the Department of
Education.
© 2014 Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Limited
All intellectual property rights, including copyright, comprised in this material are the
property of the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Ltd, a company
limited by guarantee with its registered office at 9 Torrens Street, Braddon in the
Australian Capital Territory (‘ARACY’). ARACY reserves all its rights as the owner of the
said intellectual property. You are only permitted to possess and use this material subject
to a licence granted by ARACY. The licence is granted upon the terms and conditions
which are contained on page 36 of this document. By accepting delivery of this material,
you agree to be legally bound by those terms and conditions.
If you do not agree to all the terms and conditions on page 36, then you are not
permitted to possess and use this material and must immediately return to ARACY or
destroy all copies of it.
Suggested citation
Hemphill, S.A., Heerde, J.A. & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual definition of school-based
bullying for the Australian research and academic community. Canberra: Australian
Research Alliance for Children and Youth.
Contact us
If you have any queries about this report, please contact ARACY:
Mail: PO Box 5070, Braddon, ACT 2612 Email: enquiries@aracy.org.au Website:
aracy.org.au
Phone: +61 2 6248 2400
@ARACYAustralia
ABN 68 100 902 921
A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | i

Acknowledgements
The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth would like to
acknowledge the contributions of the following people for providing valuable
advice and input into the completion of this report:
Amy Barnes, Researcher, Telethon Kids Institute
Professor Marilyn Campbell, Queensland University of Technology
Donna Cross, Professor, Telethon Kids Institute, The University of

Western Australia
Professor Kenneth Rigby, University of South Australia
Dr Grace Skrzypiec, Flinders University
Professor Phillip Slee, Flinders University
Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia
Regina Walsh, Queensland Department of Education, Training and

Employment
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Review conclusions ............................................................................................................. 2
Paper structure ................................................................................................................... 3
Section 1: Concepts and challenges in defining bullying .............. 5

1.1. Overview of the history of bullying definitions ...................................................... 5
1.2. Key concepts in contemporary definitions of bullying ........................................... 7
1.3. Traditional bullying versus cyberbullying ............................................................... 9
1.4. Australian policy definitions of school-based bullying ......................................... 10
1.5. Challenges in defining bullying ............................................................................. 11
Intentionality................................................................................................................. 12
Bullying as behaviour versus interpersonal relationship .............................................. 12
Repeated behaviours .................................................................................................... 13
Power imbalance .......................................................................................................... 13
School-based ................................................................................................................. 13
Children’s age and capacity .......................................................................................... 13
1.6. Challenges in measuring bullying ......................................................................... 14
Section 2: Proposed definition .................................................... 15

Section 3: Proposed next steps ................................................... 16
Stage 1: Operationalise the definition .............................................................................. 16
Stage 2: Promote the acceptance and use of the definition ............................................ 17
References ................................................................................... 19
Appendix A: Variation in prevalence rates of bullying according to
definition ...................................................................................... 27
Copyright notice and disclaimer .................................................. 36
A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | iii

Executive Summary
Introduction
This paper was commissioned by the Australian Research Alliance for Children
and Youth (ARACY) on behalf of the Australian Government Department of
Education. It was prepared by researchers in the School of Psychology,
Australian Catholic University.
The paper presents a conceptual definition of school-based bullying, that is, a

statement of the meaning of bullying within school communities, for the
Australian research and academic community. The paper focuses on bullying
between students, where student relationships are formed through school. It
reviews:
Existing approaches to measuring school-based bullying in Australian

and international school communities1
The different types or forms of school-based bullying (for example,

verbal, physical and psychological / social)
The rationale for and conceptual challenges involved in developing a

consistent conceptual definition of school-based bullying.
The current review was undertaken in recognition of the importance of having

a shared conceptual definition of school-based bullying. Different
conceptualisations of bullying (especially around the kinds of behaviours,
intentions, contexts and power-relations involved) lead to inconsistent
approaches to how bullying is researched and measured. In particular, this
inconsistency has meant there is significant variation in bullying prevalence
estimates and, as a result, it is nearly impossible to determine whether
differences in prevalence estimates reflect genuine differences in bullying
behaviours and experiences or simply the different measures used.2 It is then
difficult to draw general conclusions about school-based bullying and to
compare findings across studies and across contexts and jurisdictions. This
1
Although workplace bullying may impact on a school’s climate (and therefore on
students), any bullying which falls within the ambit of employment law and / or
workplace health and safety laws is outside the scope of this paper. While it is
recognised that school-based bullying can occur between students, students and
teachers, parents and teachers, and parents and students, most research has focused
on student-to-student bullying.
2
See Appendix A for a table summarising the variation in prevalence rates based on
the use of different definitions of school-based bullying.
A conceptual definition of school-based bullying Page | 1

has implications for the development of bullying policy and preventive
interventions.
The process for undertaking the current review included:
 The completion of two draft reviews in consultation with ARACY

and the Department of Education.
 A Roundtable to discuss the second draft which included

recognised Australian bullying researchers and experts in the field,
the Department of Education, and ARACY.
 Based on the feedback from the Roundtable, the completion of a

third draft that was reviewed by four peer reviewers.
 The completion of the final version of the review based on the

feedback of the reviewers, ARACY, and the Department of
Education.
Review conclusions
The review concludes there is consensus around three aspects of the
contemporary definition of bullying. These are: intentional or deliberate acts;
repeated over time; and involving a power imbalance. However, while most
bullying researchers would identify these three concepts as the core features
of bullying, the specific meanings or parameters of these concepts have not
been consistently defined and the measures most often used in studies of
bullying have not consistently captured these central features, making it
difficult to compare studies or accurately interpret the findings. The review
unpacks these concepts further and highlights the variations in interpretations
and related challenges to consistent measurement.
Over and above these issues, the study highlights the need for the definition
to accurately reflect what many stakeholders would agree bullying is, as a
cultural phenomenon, not just the description and categorisation of a set of
behaviours. The definition therefore includes a general statement of what
bullying is at a high level as well as including the detail of the various
components or behaviours.
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | 2

The proposed definition centres on the three aspects of the contemporary
definition but goes further to seek to address the issues raised by better
defining the nuances of each of these aspects and recommending a way
through the potential variations in interpretations:
Proposed definition: school-based bullying
School-based bullying is a systematic abuse of power in a relationship

formed at school characterised by:
1. aggressive acts directed (by one or more individuals) toward

victims that a reasonable person would avoid;
2. acts which usually occur repeatedly over a period of time; and
3. acts in which there is an actual or perceived power
imbalance between perpetrators and victims, with victims often
being unable to defend themselves effectively from perpetrators.
An important outcome of this review has been the recognition of the

importance of operationalising a technical definition through a formative
process in order to fully address the measurement issues highlighted in the
review – while researchers may agree in theory on a high level conceptual
definition, this quickly unravels in practice when it is operationalised in
different ways. While this proposed definition provides a clearer way forward,
the operationalising of the definition, including the development of agreed
measures and indicators, is what is required to support a better system of
data collection and consistent prevalence statistics. Hence, this conceptual
definition is the first step, that is, it is a ‘draft’ and a ‘work in progress’ to be
revisited once further formative work has been undertaken.
Paper structure
Section 1 of the review provides a succinct description of the history of
conceptualisations of bullying in the research literature, with a focus on
existing definitions of school-based bullying used in Australian and
international research and challenges in conceptualising and defining bullying.
A brief summary of the prevalence of different forms of school-based bullying
is provided in Appendix A to demonstrate how prevalence rates are influenced
greatly by how bullying is defined (and then operationalised).

Section 2 proposes a conceptual definition for the Australian academic /
research context that encapsulates the various forms of school-based bullying
occurring in school communities. The conceptual definition described in this
review is the starting point in a broader process (see Section 3) that will
include the development of an operational definition of the conceptual
definition that includes consistent indicators and measures of school-based
bullying.
Section 3 describes the next steps in trialling the conceptual definition and
also operationalising this definition of school-based bullying for use by
researchers and academics.

Section 1: Concepts and challenges in defining
bullying
Presenting definitive prevalence estimates for the different forms of school-

based bullying is challenging as a result of variation in conceptual definitions
of bullying used across existing studies, and disparity in the way bullying has
been operationalised for measurement (Appendix A demonstrates this
variation across a range of studies). The purpose of this review is to develop a
shared conceptual definition of school-based bullying for academics and
researchers. This will then inform the development of a shared approach to
operationalising the conceptual definition of bullying, with the aim of adopting
a consistent approach to measuring bullying and thus enabling an accurate
picture of bullying prevalence and a better understanding of the variation in
bullying prevalence estimates. This section of the review provides a succinct
review of conceptual definitions of school-based bullying, followed by existing
conceptual definitions of school-based bullying from the Australian and
international context, and a description of the benefits and limitations of the
existing definitions.
1.1. Overview of the history of bullying definitions

Over time, there have been significant changes to the way bullying has been
conceptualised, and the types of behaviours that have been included in
bullying definitions. Table 1 provides a summary of the major developments in
the history of conceptualising bullying. In a literature review examining the
evolution of conceptual definitions of school bullying in the international
context, Koo (2007) noted that the first major academic publication
addressing bullying among young people was written by Burk (1897), after
which there was a lengthy gap in research reports on bullying.
Published research conducted in Scandinavia appeared in the 1970s, through

the work of Pikas (1975) and Olweus (1978), and reignited academic
discussion on school-based bullying, with a focus on student-to-student
bullying. Early research conducted in the Scandinavian context used mobbing
(that is, multiple individuals bullying another individual) to describe patterns
of bullying; however, this form of behaviour represents a subset of broader
behaviours that comprise bullying. During the 1970s, bullying was theorised
and conceptualised as being part of a child’s misbehaviour.

Research conducted from the 1980s to the present has seen the meaning of
bullying expanded to include direct verbal taunting and social exclusion. For
example, Björkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen (1982) included indirect
forms of bullying, such as spreading rumours, in their definition. Later,
Olweus (1999) defined bullying including gestures and facial expression as
indirect bullying. The emergence of the internet and use of technology-based
social media has provided a new medium through which bullying can occur;
this has been termed cyber-bullying.
The continued debate over the core or essential features of bullying, including
whether cyberbullying should be considered a form of bullying or a separate
phenomenon, underscores the need for a shared, consensus-based definition.
Table 1: Developments in the conceptualisation of school-based bullying
Year Researcher Development/definition
1897 Burk First major academic publication on bullying amongst young people.
1975 Pikas Mobbing, as distinct from bullying, is a negative activity, employed by
two or more people, against one person or a well-defined group. The
perpetrators must interact with one another (they reinforce each
other), and there must be no negative intentions other than the
persecution of the victim. In other words, “mobbing tends to be a goal
in itself”.
1978 Olweus “Bullying . . . has a broader meaning compared to mobbing, and it is
different from mobbing, especially in the number of assaulters.
Mobbing happens to someone who is somewhat different from the
major group and it could be considered as part of human nature in
rejecting someone different from the majority. Although for victims of
bullying, external characteristics could be a part of the reasons for
being bullied, there could be many other reasons as well (e.g.
personality)” (cited in Koo, 2007, p. 109).
1993 Olweus “A person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly over
time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students”
(p.9).
1993 Farrington “Bullying is repeated oppression of a less powerful person, physical or

psychological, by a more powerful person” (p.381).
1994 Smith & Sharp Bullying is “the systematic abuse of power.”

2006 Pepler, Craig, Bullying is a relationship problem “because it is a form of aggression
Connolly, Yuile, that unfolds in the context of a relationship in which one child asserts
McMaster, & interpersonal power through aggression” (p. 376).
Jiang
2012 Langos “Cyberbullying involves the use of ICTs (information and
communication technologies) to carry out a series of acts as in the case
of direct cyberbullying, or an act as in the case of indirect
cyberbullying, intended to harm another (the victim) who cannot easily
defend him or herself” (p. 288).
2013 Rigby Bullying is “a desire to hurt + hurtful action + a power imbalance +

(typically) repetition + an unjust use of power + evident enjoyment by
the aggressor and a sense of being oppressed on the part of the
victim.”
1.2. Key concepts in contemporary definitions of bullying

Contemporary definitions of bullying have incorporated (with different levels
of consistency) a number of key concepts. Bullying is generally considered to
be a subset of aggressive behaviour (Koo, 2007; Spears, 2005), with the
latter defined as behaviour that intends to cause harm or injury to another
(Baron, 1977) and usually results in personal injury or destruction of property
(Bandura, 1973). School-based bullying is generally characterised as including
three main features:
i) aggressive or negative intentional or deliberate acts directed (by

one or more individuals) toward victims, in order to cause physical,
verbal, psychological, or social harm or hurt;
ii) acts which occur repeatedly over a period of time; and
iii) acts where there is a power imbalance between perpetrators and

victims, with victims often being unable to easily defend
themselves from perpetrators (Olweus,1993). This power
imbalance may be physical (for example, the perpetrator is
stronger than the victim) or sociological (for example, the victim
belongs to an ethnic minority group).
These three features of bullying are included in definitions from Australia’s

National Centre Against Bullying (2013), the United States Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (2012), and within the academic / research setting
both in Australia and internationally (for example, Due et al., 2005;
Farrington, Baldry, Kyvsgaard, and Ttofi, 2010; Hemphill, Tollit, and Kotevski,
2012). Definitions of bullying need to take into account how to separate
bullying from other similar behaviours. The three core features ensure this.
Without reference to a power imbalance and repetitiveness, the behaviour
described is simply aggression or violence. These behaviours can be
considered ‘school-based bullying’ when they involve relationships that are
formed through schools.
Within these three features of bullying, research has also established that
bullying may be overt (that is, behaviour visible to others such as physically
or verbally attacking another person) or covert (that is, behaviour that is not
visible to others such as spreading rumours or deliberately excluding another
individual from a social exchange) (Crick and Bigbee, 1998). In the Australian
Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS), covert bullying was defined as:
“any form of aggressive behaviour that is repeated, intended to

cause harm and characterised by an imbalance of power, and is
‘hidden’, out of sight of, or unacknowledged by, adults. Covert
bullying includes behaviours linked to social aggression, relational
aggression and indirect aggression, including bullying by means of
technology where the bullying behaviour is either unwitnessed, or
not addressed, by an adult” (Cross et al., 2009, p. 22).
A more detailed description of the differences between covert bullying, social

aggression, relational aggression, and indirect aggression is beyond the scope
of this review; for further information, refer to Cross et al (2009) Chapter 2.
Within the broad domains of overt and covert bullying, the following types of
bullying have been recognised (Due et al., 2005; Farrington and Ttofi, 2010;
National Centre Against Bullying, 2013):
 Physical bullying including hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, and

pushing or damaging the property of another person.
 Verbal bullying including name-calling, insulting, teasing,

intimidating, making homophobic or racist remarks, or verbally
abusing another person.
 Psychological or social bullying, designed to harm another persons’

social reputation and / or cause this person humiliation, including
lying and spreading rumours, hurtfully mimicking behaviour,

playing nasty jokes designed to cause embarrassment and
humiliation, damaging someone's social reputation or social
acceptance, encouraging others to socially exclude another person,
mobbing, and making negative facial or physical gestures,
menacing or contemptuous looks, towards another person.
1.3. Traditional bullying versus cyberbullying

The use of the technology as a medium through which bullying can occur has
resulted in a re-examination of existing definitions of school-based bullying.
Cyber-bullying has been described as bullying carried out using technology
(David-Ferdon and Hertz, 2009; Hemphill, Tollit, and Kotevski, 2012),
including behaviours such as harassing another person via a mobile phone or
internet-based social networking site, setting up a defamatory personal
website or deliberately excluding someone from interacting within social
networking spaces. In Langos’ (2012) definition (see Table 1), direct cyber-
bullying refers to repeated, unwanted communications with the victim,
whereas indirect cyber-bullying applies in situations where the perpetrator
places material on a public forum that is not sent directly to the victim.
Given technological advancements, and the removal of ‘face-to-face’ elements

traditionally associated with bullying, the emergence of cyber-bullying raises
potential conceptual and practical questions about application of the
traditionally used bullying criteria to cyber-bullying. More specifically,
questions have been raised about the repetitiveness of behaviours over time,
as well as how the intentionality of behaviour and power differentials are
determined. For example, one overt act of cyber-bullying (for example,
insulting another person through a social networking site) may have
detrimental consequences for the victim without the behaviour necessarily
being repeated at another point in time. Further, although the person
perpetrating an act of cyber-bullying may engage in this behaviour only once,
if the material is repetitively circulated more widely by other persons,
potentially resulting in a greater level of harm, questions are raised as to
whether these acts meet the traditional bullying criteria of repetition.
The nature of bullying acts perpetrated using technology and in cyberspace

may also challenge evaluations of behaviour against the traditional bullying
criteria of intent and power imbalance – particularly in terms of how intent
and power imbalance are understood and measured. However, in a study

across six European countries (Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and
France), the authors concluded that intentionality (intention to harm another
person) and imbalance of power, which “occurs when someone who is more
powerful in some way targets a person with less power causing a feeling of
powerlessness for the victim and also makes it difficult to defend oneself” (p.
10), were essential features of the definition of cyber-bullying (Menesini et al.
2012).
Menesini et al. (2012) proposed that there were two additional criteria that
may be relevant to cyber-bullying: anonymity (the victim may not know who
the perpetrator is) and ‘public versus private’ (the impact of cyber-bullying
may be greater when it occurs in public over the internet rather than as a
private exchange using electronic communication between perpetrator and
victim) (Nocentini et al., 2010; Slonje and Smith, 2008). Menesini et al.
(2012) found that adolescents defined cyber-bullying according to three main
criteria: an imbalance of power (focused on the consequences for the victim
and that the victim did not know how to defend him / herself), intentionality,
and anonymity. In the case of anonymity, if the imbalance of power is not
present, the act was more likely to be considered cyber-bullying if it was
intentional and the perpetrator was not anonymous. The public versus private
dimension was not identified in the Menesini et al. (2012) study as key criteria
for cyber-bullying.
Cyber-bullying also raises challenges for the conceptualisation of ‘school-

based’ bullying, given it can occur primarily or exclusively outside of school
grounds and school hours. However, as is not uncommon for the effects of
cyber-bullying to impact on the school environment most schools now
generally consider this form of bullying as one they do need to understand
and take steps to prevent and it is appropriate to include it in a conceptual
definition of bullying.
1.4. Australian policy definitions of school-based bullying

Australian policy definitions of school-based bullying have been informed by
research conducted to date. The Safe and Supportive School Communities
(SSSC) is a working group funded by the Standing Council for School
Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC) and includes nominated
representatives from all Australian jurisdictions, as well as representatives
from the Catholic and independent school sectors.

The SSSC researched and agreed on a definition of bullying that was included
in the revised National Safe Schools Framework, endorsed by all Education
Ministers in 2010. The National Safe Schools Framework (MCEECDYA, 2011)
defines bullying as:
 Repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological behaviour that is

harmful and involves the misuse of power by an individual or
group towards one or more persons. Cyber-bullying refers to
bullying through information and communication technologies.
 Conflict or fights between equals and single incidents are not

defined as bullying.
 Bullying of any form or for any reason can have long-term effects
on those involved including bystanders.
While these definitions are appropriate and useful for informing current and
future policy and practice, including mobilising government, schools, young
people and families in bullying prevention initiatives, they do not meet the
requirements of a research or technical definition. Researchers require a
definition that identifies the constructs that underpin the practice of bullying,
a definition that precisely identifies all of the important components of
bullying and is therefore able to be operationalised for consistent
measurement.
1.5. Challenges in defining bullying

Conceptual definitions of school-based bullying generally share key concepts,
including 1) intentional aggressive acts towards another person to cause
(psychological, social, or physical) harm, 2) repeated engagement in this
behaviour, and 3) a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim.
In general, most researchers refer to these characteristics when discussing
bullying.
However, while most bullying researchers would identify these three concepts
as the core features of bullying, the specific meanings or parameters of these
concepts have not been consistently defined and the measures most often
used in studies of bullying have not consistently captured these central
features. Roundtable members noted that bullying studies often conceptualise
and measure different components of bullying, or utilise different
interpretations of the key concepts, making it difficult to compare studies or
accurately interpret the findings.

Key conceptual issues discussed by the Roundtable are outlined below.
Intentionality
Although there is general consensus that intention to cause harm is central to
bullying, this concept is not as straightforward as it might seem. Harm may be
intended but not experienced, or not explicitly intended (in the instance of
exclusionary behaviours, for example) but nonetheless experienced. If
intentional aggressive acts are not experienced as distressing, is the
behaviour still considered bullying? Intent can be difficult to objectively
identify, let alone measure, and may be conceptually inadequate if it does not
take into account the expectation that individuals anticipate the potential
harm that may be caused by particular behaviours. Similarly, if intention to
harm is denied by an alleged perpetrator, is there any objective standard for
determining which behaviours clearly violate community norms and
expectations?
Roundtable members suggested that the concept of the ‘reasonable person’

may be appropriate to encapsulate ‘intent to harm’ in a more tangible way. A
reasonable person can be defined as “a hypothetical person in society who
exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct,” and it is a concept
that forms a comparative standard of acceptable behaviour in a legal context
(Lehman and Phelps, 2005). Langos (2012) has described how the concept of
the reasonable person applies to intent to harm in the context of bullying “An
intention to harm is established where a reasonable person, adopting the
position of the victim and having regard to all the circumstances, would
regard the behaviours as acts intended to harm to the victim” (p.288).
Bullying as behaviour versus interpersonal relationship

Roundtable discussion highlighted a critical aspect of the conceptual definition
is the need for an agreed statement or higher-level (simple) construct to
describe what bullying is. One such position stemming from the application of
bullying definitions on the ground is that bullying is a ‘type of relationship /
social dynamic / interactional pattern’ rather than ‘a behaviour’ (such as an
act of aggression). Further, it was argued, as bullying is a culturally-derived
concept (rather than ‘a thing’), the definition needs to be developed by a
cultural consensus-building process rather than being arrived at by discerning
an essential aspect (or ‘essence’) of a physical thing.
As part of exploring the relationship and experience aspects of bullying the

discussion also raised the issue of whether the definition focused on what the
bully does (that is, the behaviours or acts) or what the victim experiences.

This issue overlaps with those raised with regard to the determination of
intentionality of acts (see above).
Repeated behaviours
Repetition is another generally agreed characteristic of bullying that may be
more complex than it first appears, particularly in the context of cyber-
bullying.
A definition of bullying ought to recognise that bullying may only require one
action to have a profound impact on the victim. Additionally, in the context of
cyber-bullying, the repetition criteria could be met by the spread of a single
original post to multiple recipients through the internet. That is, an act – or
the consequences of an act – are repeated or sustained over time (for
example, an embarrassing picture is posted online and continues to distress
the target if it cannot be removed).
Power imbalance
Power imbalances can also be difficult to determine objectively and require a
relatively nuanced (and often contextually specific) understanding of power
relations. For instance, the power imbalance may be actual (older and
younger students) or perceived (relating to social status or online anonymity).
Power imbalance may be reflected in a range of characteristics such as
physical (for example, the perpetrator is stronger than the victim), sociological
(for example, the victim belongs to an ethnic minority group), anonymity or
skill differentials (for example, the victim is not as skilled at using technology).
Another important concept here is that bullying is an abuse of this power

imbalance that, because of the repetition of bullying acts, can be considered a
systematic abuse. This systematic abuse of power is also what makes it
difficult for victims to defend themselves.
School-based
The meaning of ‘school-based’ bullying has also been a source of confusion,
with some researchers and practitioners taking this to mean only bullying
which takes place within school grounds and hours, and others interpreting it
as relating to relationships formed through school and impacting social and
emotional wellbeing within school.
Children’s age and capacity

Another challenge in current conceptualisations of bullying is how to take into
account age differences in what is considered to be appropriate behaviour.

For example, at what age do children have the cognitive capacity to
intentionally harm another and / or from what age does the ‘reasonable
person’ standard apply?
This is an important issue that requires further consideration when

operationalising the definition and may involve further expert consultation and
/ or qualitative research with young people.
1.6. Challenges in measuring bullying

In addition to posing challenges to conceptual clarity, these issues raise
significant issues for the consistency of measurement. For example:
 How do researchers ensure the wording of questions reflects a

deliberate or intentional act?
 How do researchers capture the notion of power imbalance in their

surveys?
 How is the ‘cut-off’ point for bullying specified? An act repeated one or
more times can have a different meaning to an act repeated two or
more times.
 Do survey questions ask about bullying that happened at school or in

school, or about bullying that happened between people from school?
In addition, published studies have shown that prevalence estimates vary

depending on whether respondents are provided with lists of behaviours that
constitute bullying or given a description of bullying before completing the
survey (Crothers and Levinson, 2011).
It is this variation in how bullying is measured that makes the variability in

prevalence estimates and research findings about school-based bullying
difficult to interpret, and makes it challenging to identify and understand true
difference in prevalence (see Appendix A).

Section 2: Proposed definition
The conceptual definition of bullying needs to ensure the majority (if not all)
likely bullying scenarios within school environments are captured. The
proposed conceptual definition of bullying has been selected to be consistent
with that currently used in both the Australian and international research and
academic community, and to provide additional clarity around the conceptual
challenges identified in the previous section.
Proposed definition: school-based bullying
School-based bullying is a systematic abuse of power in a relationship

formed at school characterised by:
1. aggressive acts directed (by one or more individuals) toward

victims that a reasonable person would avoid;
2. acts which usually occur repeatedly over a period of time; and
3. acts in which there is an actual or perceived power
imbalance between perpetrators and victims, with victims often
being unable to defend themselves effectively from perpetrators
This definition provides specificity and enables consistency around a number

of conceptual issues:
 It establishes bullying as a systematic abuse of power,
 It clarifies that school-based bullying applies to relationships formed at

school,
 It establishes the perspective of the ‘reasonable person’ as the

mechanism for determining intentionality,
 It retains the criteria of repetition but with flexibility that allows for
different patterns of bullying identified as part of cyber-bullying, and
 It notes the importance of actual and perceived power imbalances.

Section 3: Proposed next steps
The brief of this review was to generate a conceptual definition of school-

based bullying. This is an important first step towards more consistent
measurement of school-based bullying, as it sets the foundation for the
development of common indicators and measures of bullying, which can then
be incorporated consistently into all bullying prevalence studies. As noted by
Roundtable participants, it is a normal part of the research process for
conceptual ideas to be trialled and modified through an iterative process.
A short statement of the bullying concept (‘Bullying is a systematic abuse of

power in a relationship formed at school’) has been included in the proposed
definition, however, it will be necessary to explore this further as it will have
implications for how bullying is measured, how clearly the concept is
articulated and understood in practice, and ultimately how accurately the
measured concepts reflect the phenomenon. In operationalising the definition,
research and consultation will aim to test, validate or challenge the conceptual
definition and its adequacy and usefulness when applied in practice. The
formative process can be designed to include a cultural consensus-building
process as well as the technical aspects of defining and measuring
behaviours. Useful questions to explore in the formative testing and feedback
stage may therefore include:
1. What kind of phenomenon is ‘bullying’? Is the concept able to be

described in a short statement by a range of stakeholders?
2. Is the more detailed definition accurate?
3. Is the more detailed definition comprehensive?
4. Is the more detailed definition adequate to distinguish bullying from

other behaviours or incidents?
The following outlines agreed next steps for operationalising this definition of
school-based bullying.
Stage 1: Operationalise the definition

Several sub-steps will be required to operationalise this definition:
i) Undertake review work and a roundtable discussion to scope available

indicators, measures and instruments, in order to establish a

consistent process that enables the proposed conceptual definition to
be effectively operationalised.
ii) On the basis of the review, recommend a draft operationalisation of

the conceptual definition and in particular describe the measures and
indicators that could be used to operationalise the conceptual
definition of school-based bullying.
iii) The draft operationalisation of the conceptual definition can then be

trialled, tested, or formatively evaluated by seeking feedback from
academics using the draft definition in their research. The outcome of
this formative work would be a detailed definition that incorporates a
high-level concept ‘bullying is a...’ statement and the components of
the definition, as well as the constructs, indicators, and measures that
are best used to capture this.
iv) During the process of operationalising the conceptual definition, it will

also be important to obtain the perspectives and understandings of
young people and to ensure the development of ‘plain language’
definitions for young people and their families.
v) Consistent with research processes, after a trial period, revisit the

conceptual definition and if needed, propose a revised, detailed
conceptual definition and how this can be operationalised.
Stage 2: Promote the acceptance and use of the definition

To promote the acceptance and use of the conceptual definition and the
operationalisation of this definition developed from the formative process, the
following activities can be undertaken:
 Publication of outcomes of this formative work in a peer-reviewed

journal article (so other researchers can cite the definition in their
work).
 Presentations of the definition and research at conferences where

bullying researchers and academics are likely to present (to raise
awareness of the work and promote use of the definition and citation
of the peer-reviewed journal article).

 Webinars organised by ARACY targeted at the research and academic
community and presented by the authors of the review to disseminate
the definitions and encourage their usage through citations in their
own research.
 Placing a summary of the work on relevant websites such as the

ARACY website.
 ARACY to collaborate with the National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB)

to promote the use of the definition among researchers within NCAB
and its networks and citation of the published paper to show support
of the definitions.

References
Allen, K.P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices.

The Professional Educator, 34(1), 1-16.
Andrew, A.A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: A study

to investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,
255-268.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R.A. (1977). Human Aggression. New York: Plenum.
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school
bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15-33.
Björkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: their
ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 23, 307–313.
Burk, F.L. (1897). Teasing and bullying. Pedagogical Seminary, 4, 336-371.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Understanding bullying

fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingfactsheet2012-
a.pdf
Crick, N.R., & Bigbee, M.A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer
victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 337-347.
Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and
social‐psychological adjustment. Child development, 66(3), 710-722.
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas,
L. (2009). Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Perth,
Australia: Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan
University.
A conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | 19

Crothers, L.M. & Levinson, E.D. (2011). Assessment of bullying: A review of
methods and instruments. Journal of Counselling & Development,
82(4), 496-503.
David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M.F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and
adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41(6, Supp), S1-S5.
David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M.F. (2009). Electronic Media and Youth Violence:
A CDC Issue Brief for Researchers. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J.,
& Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying / victimization
of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and
psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1),
71-90.
Dixon, R. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model.

Cambridge University Press.
Dooley, J.J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face
bullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188.
Due, P., Holstein, B.E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S.N., Scheidt, P.,
& Currie, C. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged
children: international comparative cross sectional study in 28
countries. The European Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 128-132.
Duncan, D.J., & Riley, D. (2005). Staff bullying in Catholic schools. Australia
and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education 10(11), 47.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 381-458). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Farrington, D., Baldry, A., Kyvsgaard, B., & Ttofi, M. (2010). School-Based
Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization (No. 6) (p. 147).
Campbell Systematic Reviews.

Farrington, D.P., & Ttofi, M.M. (2010). School-Based Programs to Reduce
Bullying and Victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews: 6,
10.4073/csr.2009.6
Forero, R. McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour
and psychosocial health among school students in New South Wales,
Australia: cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 319(7206),
344-348.
Gastic, B. (2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying

victims. Educational Review, 60(4), 391-404.
Glew, G.M., Fan , M-Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F.P., & Kernic, M.A. (2005).
Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in
elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
159, 1026-1031.
Griffin, R.S., & Gross, A.M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical
findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 9(4), 379-400.
Hay, C., Meldrum, R. & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying,
and deviance: A general strain theory approach. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(2), 130-147.
Hemphill, S.A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T.I.,
Toumbourou, J.W., & Catalano, R.F. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of
cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in Australian secondary
school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 59-65.
Hemphill, S.A., Tollit, M. & Kotevski, A. (2012). Rates of bullying perpetration

and victimisation: A longitudinal study of Victorian secondary school
students. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of
Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 30, 99-112. Special issue
on Violence, Aggression and Support.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of

factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2),
129-156.

Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying
at school—an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders.
Journal of Adolescence, 23(6), 661-674.
Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who Are
the Victims? A Comparison of Victimization in Internet Chatrooms and
Victimization in School. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(1), 25-36.
Kauppi, T., & Porhola, M. (2012a). School teachers bullied by their students:
Teachers’ attributions and how they share their experiences. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 28(7), 1059-1068.
Kauppi, T., & Porhola, M. (2012b). Teachers bullied by students: Forms of

bullying and perpetrator characteristics. Violence and Victims, 27(3),
396-413.
Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing

social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 107-116.
Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: The challenge to define. Cyberpsychology,

Behaviour, and Social Networking, 15(6), 285-289.
Lehman, J., & Phelps, S. (2005). West’s Encyclopaedia of American Law in

The Free Dictionary: Legal Dictionary, Farlex. Accessed 22 November
2013.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B.E., Frisen, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz,
R., Calmaestra, J., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-Krumbholz, A. Luik, P.,
Naruskov, K., Blaya, C., Berthaud, J., & Smith, P.K. (2012).
Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six
European countries, 15(9), 455-463.
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B.E., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-

Krumbholz, A., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Ortega, R.,
Calmaestra, J., & Blaya, C.,(in press). Definitions of cyberbullying. In
P. Smith & G. Steffgen (Eds.), Cyberbullying through the new media:
Findings from an international network. Psychology Press.

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth
Affairs. (2011). National Safe Schools Framework. Ministerial Council
for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs:
Carlton, Victoria. Retrieved from
http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_safe_sch
ools_framework.pdf
McEvoy, A. (2005). Teachers who bully students: Patterns and policy

implications. In Teachers who bully students. Presentation to the
Conference on Persistently Safe Schools–Philadelphia (September 11–
14. 2005).
Nansel, T.R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R.S., Ruan, W.J., Simons-Morton, B., &
Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US Youth: Prevalence
and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094-
2100.
National Centre Against Bullying. (2013). http://www.ncab.org.au/
National Center for Educational Statistics: Institute of Education Sciences.

(2011). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying: Results from
the 2007 school crime supplement to the National Crime Victimization
Survey (Report 316). Washington DC: National Center for Educational
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega,

R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and
definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance
and Counselling, 20, 129–142.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipping boys.

Hemisphere Press (John Wiley): Washington, D.C.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.
Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford.
Olweus, D. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado at Boulder: Boulder, CO.

Ozkilic, R. (2012). Bullying toward teachers: An example from Turkey.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 95-112.
Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Connolly, J.A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D.
(2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior.
32, 376–384.
Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and
cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and
Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental
Health, 4(28), 1-10.
Pikas, A. (1975). Treatment of Mobbing in School: Principles for and the

Results of the Work of an Anti‐Mobbing Group. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 19(1), 1-12.
Pornari, C.D. & Wood, J. (2009). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary
school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution
bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81-94.
Rigby, K. (2013). Defining bullying: a new look at an old concept. Retrieved

from http://www.kenrigby.net/02a-Defining-bullying-a-new-look
Riley, D., Duncan, D.J., & Edwards, J. (2011). Staff bullying in Australian
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 7-30.
Saunders, P., Huynh, A. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace

bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4-5), 340-354.
Smith,P.K. and Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and

perspectives. London: Routledge.
Skaalvik, E.M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and

relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and
teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611.
Slonje R, & Smith P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49, 147–154.

Spears, B.A. (2005). South Australian middle-school girls’ perceptions,
understandings and experiences of peer relationships, bullying and
aggression in single-sex and co-educational settings. Unpublished PhD
Thesis. Flinders University.
Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and
screens: Insights into the human dimension of covert and
cyberbullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189-196.
Student Learning and Support Services Taskforce (2003). National Safe

Schools Framework. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natsafeschools_file.pd
f
Swearer, S.M., & Espelage, D.L. (2004). Introduction: A Social-Ecological

Framework of Bullying Among Youth. In D.L. Espelage & S.M. Swearer
(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on
prevention and intervention (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ” Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Terry, A.A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: a study to

investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2),
255-268.
The Free Dictionary by Farlex. Retrieved from http://legal-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person
Troman, G. (2000). Teacher stress in the low-trust society. British journal of

sociology of education, 21(3), 331-353.
Ttofi, M.M., & Farrington, D.P. (2010). School bullying: Risk factors, theories
and interventions. Handbook of crime, 427-57.
Turney, L. (2003). Mental health and workplace bullying: The role of power,
professions and 'on the job' training. Advances in Mental Health, 2(2),
99-107.

Twemlow, S.W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F.C., & Brethour, J.R. (2006). Teachers
who bully students: A hidden trauma. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 52(3), 187-198.
United States Centers for Disease Control. (2012). Website. retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/
Van der Wal, M.F., De Wit, C.A., & Hirasing, R.A. (2003). Psychosocial health
among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying.
Pediatrics, 111(6), 1312-1317.
Wang, J., Nansel, T.R., & Iannotti, R.J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying:
Differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health,
48, 415-417.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment:
associations with caregiver-child relationships, internet use, and
personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 319-336.
Zerillo, C., & Osterman, K.F. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying.
Improving Schools, 14(3), 239-257.

Appendix A: Variation in prevalence rates of bullying according to definition
Authors Country Bullying definition Example Rates in Rates 3 Rates Age of sample
measure/item sample (males) (females)
Student-to-student bullying
Due et al. Sweden “Bullying is defined as a ‘During this term, N/A TP 6.3% TP 5.1% 11-15 yrs
(2005) deliberate, repeated or how often have you
long-term exposure to been bullied at
negative acts performed school?’
by a person or group of
persons regarded of Responses were
higher status or greater recorded into three
strength than the victim levels: (1) never /
(Olweus, 1993). Bullying once or twice, (2)
might be verbal acts sometimes, and (3)
such as threats, insults about every week /
or nicknames or physical all the time.
acts such as assault or
theft. Also social acts
such as exclusion from
the peer group are
considered bullying.”
(p.129)
Due et al. Lithuania As above As above N/A TP 41.1% TP 38.2% 11-15 yrs
(2005)
3
Note: TP = traditional bullying perpetration; CP = cyber-bullying perpetration; TV = traditional bullying victimisation; CV = cyber-bullying victimisation

National USA “Traditional bullying “During this school TP 32% N/A N/A 12-18 yrs
Center for includes bullying by a year, has any
Educational peer that occurred at student bullied you? CP 3.7%
Statistics school. Students were That is, has another
(2011) asked whether another student:
student had made fun of
them, called them (a) Made fun of you,
names, or insulted called you names,
them; spread rumours or insulted you?
about them; threatened (b) Spread rumours
them with harm; pushed about you?
or shoved them; forced (c) Threatened you
them to do something with harm?
they did not want to do; (d) Pushed you,
excluded them from shoved you, tripped
activities; or destroyed you, or spit on you?
their property.” (p.10, (e) Tried to make
Footnote 11) you do things you
did not want to do,
“Electronic bullying for example, give
includes bullying by a them money or
peer that occurred other things?
anywhere via electronic (f) Excluded you
means, including the from activities on
Internet, e-mail, instant purpose?
messaging, text (g) Destroyed your
messaging, online property on

gaming, and online purpose?”
communities.” (p.11,
footnote 11)
Cross et al. Australia Bullying: “repeated ‘‘This term, how TV 24-29% TP & CP 11% TP & CP 7% 8-14 yrs
(2009) behaviour that was often:
intended to cause harm CP 4% CP, 3%
to someone who finds it (a) were you bullied
hard to stop it from by another student
happening.” (p. 399) or group of students
again and again?;
and
(b) did you bully
another student or
group of students
again and again?’’
Response categories
were: never, once
or twice, every few
weeks, about once a
week, most days
this term.”
Hemphill et Australia “Traditional bullying Traditional bullying: TV 28% TV 28% TV 15% 14-17 yrs
al. (2012) includes aggressive / Students asked had
negative intentional acts they “taken part in CV 14% CV 13% CV 16%
repeatedly directed (by bullying another
one or more individuals) student(s) at school

toward victims over recently.”
time. When bullying
occurs, there is typically Cyberbullying:
a power imbalance Students asked in
between perpetrators the past 12 months
and victims, with victims they had “bullied
often being unable to another student
easily defend using technology,
themselves from such as mobile
perpetrators (Olweus, telephones, the
1993).” (p .60) Internet, computers,
answering
machines, or
cameras?”
Ybarra & USA “Both online and offline “Youth were asked CP 15% N/A N/A 10-17 yrs
Mitchell bullying are rooted in if they had engaged
(2004) aggression, though in two possible
bullying is typically online harassment
defined as acting out behaviours in the
towards someone past year:
known to the aggressor,
whereas Internet (a) making rude or
harassment may be nasty comments to
directed at a victim someone on the
unknown to the Internet, or
provoker.” (p. 321) (b) using the
Internet to harass

or embarrass
someone with
whom the youth
was mad.”
Teacher-to-student bullying
Twemlow USA “A bullying teacher was Asked teachers: Isolated cases N/A N/A K to Grade 5
defined as a teacher 70%
et al. who uses his / her “How many
(2006) power to punish, teachers have you Frequent cases
manipulate or disparage known to bully 18%
a student beyond what students in the past
school year: 0, 1, 2, 32% knew
would be a reasonable teachers who
disciplinary procedure.” 3, 6.”
had bullied (1-6
(p. 191) teachers)
45% teachers
had bullied
McEvoy Not “Bullying by teachers ... “Is there a high 47% of students TP 30% TP 12% 15-23 yrs
(2005) stated is an abuse of power degree of identified 3 or involved only involved only
that tends to be chronic agreement among more teachers male teachers female
and often is expressed students on which they considered teachers
in a public manner.” (p. teachers in a school bullies TP 57%
1) are perceived to included both 57% included
bully students?” male and both male and
female teachers female

teachers
Delfrabbro Australia “Bullying can usually be “Participants were TV (all) 7.5% TV (all) 9.8% TV (all) 5.2% High schools
et al. defined as a repeated presented with five
(2006) pattern of aggressive statements TV (by teachers) TV (by TV (by
behaviour directed regarding various 8.5% teachers) 10% teachers) 7%
towards another person forms of
who has less status or victimisation (i.e. ‘I
power (Rigby, 1997). get picked on by
Such aggression need other kids’, ‘I get
not be physical, and can picked on by some
include a variety of non- teachers’)
physical forms such as
emotional and verbal Response options:
abuse, threats, as well Rated on a 4-point
as exclusion in which a scale the extent to
person directly, or which each of these
indirectly, ostracizes had been their
another person from a experience both in
social group.” (p. 72) school and outside
of school (1 never;
4 very often).”
Student-to-teacher bullying
Terry UK “Bullying occurs in Teachers were Teachers: TV TV High schools

(1998) situations where the asked, ‘How often
victim cannot easily would you say that 56% bullied at 63% of male 50% of

escape. It occurs when a pupil or pupils least once teachers bullied female
an uneven balance of might have viewed once or more teachers
power is exploited and your actions as 36% bullied bullied once
abused by an individual bullying this term?’ sometimes or more
or individuals who in 10% bullied
that particular several times a
circumstance have the week
advantage. Bullying is
characterised by
persistent, repetitive
acts of physical or
psychological
aggression.” (p. 261)
Ozkilic Turkey Not stated Not stated TV Male teachers Female Primary and high
(2012) experienced teachers schools
39% verbal more physical experienced
bullying bullying more verbal
18% physical bullying
bullying
25% social
bullying (e.g.,
gossiping)
11% had their

personal
property

damaged
Kauppi & Finland “A teacher is repeatedly “Are your bullies TV Male students N/A Respondents 20-
Porhola subjected, by one or students whom you more likely to 60yrs (reporting on
(2012a,b) more students, to currently teach or 90% obscene or be perpetrator experiences in
interaction that he or have taught in the inappropriate primary and
she perceives as past?” comments made secondary schools)
insulting, upsetting, or towards them
intimidating. Response options:
60-80% various
Bullying can be verbal, (a) “students, whom forms of social
nonverbal, or physical in you currently bullying (e.g.,
nature.” (p. 399) teach,” name calling,
mimicking)
(b) “students whom
you have taught in 31% physical
the past,” and bullying
(c) “students whom
31% damage to
you have never
personal
taught.”
property
CV
7-15% various
forms of cyber-
bullying (e.g.,
email, text
messages,

abusive internet
postings).
Parent-to-teacher bullying
Duncan and Australia “The definition adopted The questionnaire Parents along N/A N/A Primary and high
Riley for this research was consisted mostly of with school schools
(2005) that used by Salin closed-format items executives were
(2003, p. 10): repeated with some open most likely to be
and persistent negative ended components. the bullies of
acts towards one or school staff
more individual(s),
which involve a
persistent power
imbalance and create a
hostile work
environment.” (p. 48)

Copyright notice and disclaimer
Copyright and all intellectual property rights in this document (‘the material’) are and
remain the property of the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Ltd
(‘ARACY’).
By accepting delivery of this material and accepting the below terms, you are granted a
limited, royalty-free, worldwide licence to use the material and are bound by the following
terms and conditions in respect of the licence:
1. Provided that you include a copy of this copyright notice on any reproduction,
communication, adaptation or other use, you may reproduce the material,
communicate it to the public, make an adaptation of it or use it in any other way,
subject to the following provisions.
2. You may not use the material in any of the following ways:
a. Any use that fails to attribute ARACY’s authorship of the material;
b. Any use that could be prejudicial to ARACY’s reputation;
c. Any use that does not achieve with the objectives set out in the material;
d. Any use that is illegal or unlawful; or
e. Any commercial use, being any use by reason of which you receive a
payment, profit or benefit in kind.
3. In consideration for the grant of the licence conferred by clauses 1 and 2, you agree
to the following provisions:
a. ARACY is a not-for-profit organisation, and the purpose of the material is the
advancement of the wellbeing of children. As such, you acknowledge ARACY
does not provide the material in the course of trade and commerce.
b. To the maximum extent permitted by law, ARACY makes no warranties,
express or implied, with respect to the material, including without limitation,
any express or implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose of the material.
c. You expressly agree that your use of, or inability, to use the material is at
your sole risk.
d. To the maximum extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to release and
discharge ARACY from any liability whatsoever arising from or associated with
your use of, or inability to use, the material.
e. To the maximum extent permitted by law, in no case shall ARACY, its
directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents, contractors or licensors be
liable for any liability arising from your use of any the material, or for any
other claim related in any way to your use of the material including, but not
limited to any errors or omissions in any content or any loss or damage of
any kind incurred as a result of the use of any content (or product) posted,
transmitted, or otherwise made available by ARACY, even if ARACY have
been advised of the possibility of such a Liability or claim arising.
f. ARACY does not represent or guarantee that the material will be free from
loss, corruption, attack, viruses, interference, hacking or other security
intrusion, and ARACY disclaims any liability relating thereto.

g. ARACY does not represent or guarantee the material’s accuracy or
completion.
4. In the event that you fail to comply with any of the above conditions, ARACY may
terminate your licence to use the material by giving you written notice. Upon receipt
of such a notice, you must immediately return to ARACY or destroy all copies of the
material in your possession or control and advise ARACY of the identity and location
of any persons to whom you have provided copies of the material.
If you disagree with the above terms, then you are not granted a licence to use the material
and you must immediately return all copies of the material in your possession or control to
ARACY.

The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) facilitates collaboration
between commissioning agencies and Australia’s leading experts to produce
What Works for Kids Evidence Reviews
aracy.org.au

A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying - FINAL JUNE 2014 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying - FINAL JUNE 2014 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Defining Bullying

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian

A What Works for Kids Evidence Review

S.A. Hemphill, J.A. Heerde and R. Gomo

© 2014 Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Limited

ABN 68 100 902 921

A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | i

Amy Barnes, Researcher, Telethon Kids Institute

Professor Marilyn Campbell, Queensland University of Technology

Donna Cross, Professor, Telethon Kids Institute, The University of

Professor Kenneth Rigby, University of South Australia

Dr Grace Skrzypiec, Flinders University

Professor Phillip Slee, Flinders University

Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia

Regina Walsh, Queensland Department of Education, Training and

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | ii

Executive Summary ....................................................................... 1

Section 1: Concepts and challenges in defining bullying .............. 5

Section 2: Proposed definition .................................................... 15

A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | iii

The paper presents a conceptual definition of school-based bullying, that is, a

Existing approaches to measuring school-based bullying in Australian

The different types or forms of school-based bullying (for example,

The rationale for and conceptual challenges involved in developing a

The current review was undertaken in recognition of the importance of having

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying Page | 1

The process for undertaking the current review included:

 The completion of two draft reviews in consultation with ARACY

 A Roundtable to discuss the second draft which included

 Based on the feedback from the Roundtable, the completion of a

 The completion of the final version of the review based on the

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | 2

Proposed definition: school-based bullying

School-based bullying is a systematic abuse of power in a relationship

1. aggressive acts directed (by one or more individuals) toward

An important outcome of this review has been the recognition of the

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying Page | 3

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | 4

Presenting definitive prevalence estimates for the different forms of school-

1.1. Overview of the history of bullying definitions

Published research conducted in Scandinavia appeared in the 1970s, through

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying Page | 5

Table 1: Developments in the conceptualisation of school-based bullying

Year Researcher Development/definition

1993 Farrington “Bullying is repeated oppression of a less powerful person, physical or

1994 Smith & Sharp Bullying is “the systematic abuse of power.”

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | 6

2013 Rigby Bullying is “a desire to hurt + hurtful action + a power imbalance +

1.2. Key concepts in contemporary definitions of bullying

i) aggressive or negative intentional or deliberate acts directed (by

ii) acts which occur repeatedly over a period of time; and

iii) acts where there is a power imbalance between perpetrators and

These three features of bullying are included in definitions from Australia’s

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying Page | 7

“any form of aggressive behaviour that is repeated, intended to

A more detailed description of the differences between covert bullying, social

 Physical bullying including hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, and

 Verbal bullying including name-calling, insulting, teasing,

 Psychological or social bullying, designed to harm another persons’

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | 8

1.3. Traditional bullying versus cyberbullying

Given technological advancements, and the removal of ‘face-to-face’ elements

The nature of bullying acts perpetrated using technology and in cyberspace