Comparison of Teachers’ and Social Pedagogues’ Ways of Handling School Bullying Incidents

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the differences between teachers’ and social pedagogues’ ways of handling school bullying incidents. Quantitative descriptive research design was used and Estonian teachers (purposive sample, N=424) and social pedagogues (representative sample, N=177) completed the Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ). The HBQ was used to measure how likely teachers and social pedagogues use five strategies (working with the bully, working with the victim, ignoring bullying, enlisting other adults, disciplining the bully) to handle school bullying incidents. Factor analysis and independent samples comparison revealed that teachers’ and social pedagogues’ strategies on responding to school bullying incidents differed on three of the five HBQ scale factor scores: (1) social pedagogues more often worked with the bully; (2) teachers more often ignored the bullying and (3) disciplined the bully. Teachers and social pedagogues used different strategies, whereas teachers tend to more ignore the bullying. This knowledge helps us to develop better bullying prevention and intervention to put emphasize on supporting teachers for using more effective strategies to collaboratively with non-teaching staff members deal with bullying in schools.

Keywords: Handling school bullying, teachers and social pedagogues’ perspectives

Introduction

School bullying is a complex process of social interactions that has been a subject of research for decades (Escuadra et al., 2023; Smith, 2016; Zych et al., 2015). School bullying can be considered as a global social health problem that affects young people all over the world (Craig et al., 2009) and peer victimization is a risk for mental health, including suicide ideation among youth (Li et al., 2022; Van Geel et al., 2022). Exposure to bullying is not only a risk for learners, but also affects negatively teachers’ mental health and has been related to higher levels of anxiety and depression (Woudstra et al., 2018).

Although, there are various definitions for bullying, Olweus’ (1999) definition is widely used, which defines bullying using following criteria to characterize the form of aggressive behaviour: (1) intention to cause harm; (2) behaviour is repeated over time; (3) imbalance of power in relationship. School bullying is one of the most common expressions of aggression in the peer context during school years (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017) with the focus on social relationships (Sercombe & Donnelly, 2013). For decades, direct (visible attacks) and indirect (social isolation, exclusion) bullying is distinguished (Olweus, 1999), but with wider use of technology, cyberbullying is also a matter of research now (Smith, 2016).

Since much of the bullying occurs in schools, teachers, and other non-teaching staff members (e.g., social pedagogues, school counsellors, school psychologists, guidance counsellors) can be considered the key actors in prevention and intervention of school bullying (Bauman et al., 2021). Meta-analyses show that school anti-bullying interventions are effective in reducing overall bullying rates and helping to improve youth mental health, but the effect sizes are small (Fraguas et al., 2021). Therefore, larger effect sizes for school bullying interventions were associated with the presence of a number of intervention components, such as whole-school approach, anti-bullying policies, classroom rules, information for parents, informal peer involvement and work with victims (Gaffney et al., 2021). With adolescents, intervention trials should also consider the role of peer status and peer group norms which in adolescence might be the most relevant contextual moderators for intervention effects (Salmivalli et al., 2021). Decrease of general intervention across time was associated with higher odds of victimization and lower odds of being a defender (Burger et al., 2022). For the most victimized youth and especially for younger children, school-based interventions to reduce bullying can be considered generally effective (Hensums et al., 2022).

Problem Statement

Teachers play an important role in tackling school bullying and their responses to bullying need more research (Colpin et al., 2021). The non-teaching staff members (e.g. social pedagogues, school counsellors, school psychologists, guidance counsellors) also have a great responsibility in handling school bullying incidents but there are few studies in this area. There are various individual and contextual variables that influence teachers’ response in bullying situations (Yoon & Bauman, 2014). In a scoping review, Gizzarelli et al. (2023) described individual (perceived self-efficacy, perceived seriousness of the bullying incident, sympathy or empathy for the target, teacher’s gender, years of teaching, personal experiences with bullying, and orientation) and school factors (bullying prevention, training, school policies, and organisational characteristics) that influence school staff members’ responses to bullying incidents. A recent systematic review by Van Aalst et al. (2022) concluded that teachers’ likelihood to intervene in bullying situations (which also affects the actual behaviour and intervention strategies) can be influenced by teachers’ knowledge and understanding of bullying, attitudes toward bullying, perceived subjective norms, and self-efficacy. Therefore, it is important to understand the impact of school bullying and how teachers and non-teaching staff members can address the issue effectively.

Although researchers generally share a common definition of bullying, a systematic review (Younan, 2019) of students of different ages and teachers reveals that when defining bullying all criteria may not be included. Qualitative research with preschool teachers revealed that although teachers described some of the characteristics of bullying (intention to harm, power imbalance, repetition), many of them had difficulties in differentiating between bullying and fighting (Ey & Campbell, 2022). Another qualitative study (using vignettes) elaborates that while “intention to harm” and “power imbalance” as criteria of bullying were relevant for teachers, repetition was not directly addressed and was highlighted by few of the teachers (Paljakka, 2023). Even though pre-service teachers acknowledge that bullying has harmful effects on students, they do not distinguish bullying from other types of unacceptable behaviours or have sufficient knowledge to understand the multi-faceted nature of bullying (Mahon et al., 2023).

In contrast, when defining bullying, social pedagogues acknowledge the combination of different components, multilevel concepts of bullying and characteristics of individuals who are engaged in bullying behaviour with emphasis on the bullying intervention and prevention (Kõiv & Aia-Utsal, 2019). Eriksen (2018) included school staff members as teachers, support staff (social workers, well-being officers, school nurse), and management and found, through interviews, that school staff members used a narrow definition of bullying as a rigid tool to decide whether and how to react towards incidents (Eriksen, 2018). According to Gizzarelli et al. (2023), school staff responses to student reports of bullying can be addressed to peers, bullying target, bullying perpetrator, school community, wider community or the last option is no response to bullying.

In addition to knowledge about understanding school bullying, individual, professional and contextual variables also influence teachers’ response to school bullying. Previous research has found that teachers’ intention to intervene in school bullying has been associated with teachers’ autonomous motivation (Sutter et al., 2023) and job satisfaction (De Luca et al., 2019). When teachers attribute bullying to external causes which are not in their control, victimization rate among students was high (Oldenburg et al., 2015) and teachers who tend to act passively in bullying situations reported high levels of learned helplessness (Song et al., 2018). Also, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about managing interpersonal relationships in school were positively associated with enlisting other adults and using authority-based interventions when handling school bullying incidents (Kollerová et al., 2021). Results from recent meta-analysis (Ten Bokkel et al., 2023) indicate that teachers can lower levels of school bullying and peer victimization by establishing high-quality affective teacher-student relationships. Teachers’ affective empathy is a significant positive predictor of intervention for traditional bullying (Eldridge & Jenkins, 2020) and school counsellors felt more empathetic to victims of physical and verbal bullying, less for victims of relational bullying (Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007). Teachers who reported high empathy for victims, were more likely to intervene in relational bullying situation (Wolgast et al., 2022).

To measure how respondents might act in response to bullying scenario, The Handling Bullying Questionnaire (HBQ, Bauman et al., 2008) has been used consisting of five subscales:;;;;. Previous studies using the HBQ indicate that teachers who had childhood experiences of being victims of bullying (compared to teachers with different experiences) would use more and, but not respond to victims (Yoon et al., 2016) and teachers with workplace bullying experience (compared with non-victimized teachers) tend to use more to and (Kõiv, 2019). While teachers can be active or passive in terms of intervening in school bullying, teachers’ active responses to bullying (e.g. authority-based interventions and intention to work with the bully) were positively associated with collaboration and communication among teachers in the school (Kollerová et al., 2021). Preparing teachers to deal with school bullying is necessary: teachers who had received anti-bullying training were more likely to use active strategies measured with the HBQ, compared to untrained teachers (Sairanen & Pfeffer, 2011). Teachers’ higher competence on bullying is directly associated with lower levels of school bullying and victimization (De Luca et al., 2019) and also teachers reported that they need training and professional development to deal with cyberbullying effectively (Fredrick et al., 2023).

When defining the origins of school bullying, pre-school teachers and psychologists’ identification differed – teachers believe the most influential factor is the use of digital technologies and psychologists believe it to be the social and family environment of the aggressor (Fernández-Alfaraz et al., 2023). Teachers and school counsellors’ intention to intervene in bullying situations was motivated by beliefs about the consequences of school bullying (Gagnon et al., 2022) and teachers who have a more negative attitude toward aggression tend to react more actively, measured with the HBQ (Grumm & Hein, 2013). It has been found that teachers and school counsellors’ motives to intervene in bullying may differ: teachers’ focus was more on preventing students’ negative impacts on academic success and learning; alternatively, school counsellors focused more on positive psychosocial and interpersonal impacts like norms about behaving adequately with peers and developing appropriate interpersonal skills (Gagnon et al., 2022).

When comparing teachers and counsellors’ ways of handling school bullying incidents as measured with the HBQ, previous research has found that counsellors had lower scores on ignoring the incident and disciplining the bully and tend more to work with the victim compared with teachers (Bauman et al., 2008). Also, guidance counsellors were likely to discipline the bully and enlist other adults as a strategy for handling school bullying incidents and therefore, were unlikely to ignore the bullying incident (Power-Elliott & Harris, 2012). When teachers were compared with education support professionals (e.g. paraeducators, clerical services, transportation, food and other services), teachers reported bullying as a significantly greater problem and felt more comfortable with intervening when different forms of school bullying occur (Bradshaw et al., 2013).

Research Question

The research question that emerged is how teachers and social pedagogues’ ways of handling bullying incidents among students may differ.

Purpose of the Study

The aim of this study is to compare the differences between teachers and social pedagogues’ ways of handling school bullying incidents. It was hypothesized that social pedagogues would work more with the bullies and victims compared with teachers.

Research Methods

Findings

The findings from the current study revealed that respondents’ strategies in responding to school bullying incidents differed on three of the five HBQ subscales:,, and. The comparison of the two groups (teachers and social pedagogues) and scores of the subscales of the HBQ are represented in Table 1.

High mean scores were reported by teachers on following subscales: Disciplining the bully, Enlisting other adults, and Working with the bully; and by social pedagogues: Working with the bully and Disciplining the bully. Subscales Working with the victim and Enlisting other adults received similar mean values reported by both teachers and social pedagogues with no statistically significant differences found.

Three subscales emerged where teachers and social pedagogues’ ways of handling school bullying incidents differed.

Conclusions

Teachers’ ways of dealing with school bullying has been a research subject for many years, whereas among school staff members the research done is relatively limited and this stimulates new research questions. Since previous studies have found that there were differences in defining (social pedagogues focus more on prevention and intervention of bullying, e.g., Kõiv & Aia-Utsal, 2019) bullying and dealing (teachers’ motivation to intervene in school bullying focused more on the group and school counsellors on the individual, e.g. Gagnon et al., 2022) with school bullying among teachers and school staff members’, it was hypothesized that social pedagogues would work more with the bullies and victims compared with teachers. This hypothesis was partially confirmed.

The results suggest that teachers’ and social pedagogues’ strategies on responding to school bullying incidents differed on three of the five HBQ subscale scores:,, and. Therefore, the most reported strategy for teachers was and for social pedagogues.

The results indicate that social pedagogues would use the strategy more compared to teachers. Social pedagogues compared to teachers would more use strategies that give responsibility in dealing with bullying situations to the bullies as well. It has been found previously that 44.1% of teachers use the strategy in intervening to school bullying incidents which was the second popular strategy for teachers measured with the HBQ (Burger et al., 2015). Also, long service teachers (over 20 years of work experience) use the strategy more compared with teachers who have worked less than 10 years (Sairanen & Pfeffer, 2011). Findings from the current study report as the most popular strategy for social pedagogues and third choice for teachers in handling school bullying incidents.

The second scale that found statistically significant differences between teachers and social pedagogues was, whereas teachers reported the use of strategy more often while social pedagogues would ignore the incident less. However, it was the least used strategy for both teachers and social pedagogues in handling bullying incidents. In addition, teachers had higher mean scores on compared to school counsellors, who used the strategy less (Bauman et al., 2008) and this was also the strategy used least as reported by guidance counsellors who were unlikely to ignore the bullying incident (Power-Elliott & Harris, 2012). Teachers with workplace victimization experience were less likely to incidents compared with teachers who did not have such experience (Kõiv, 2019). Yet ignoring the bullying seems to be a complicated matter since in the self-reported intervention strategy of responding to school bullying, 0% of teachers reported ignoring the incident according to Burger et al. (2015). On the other hand, from the students’ perspective, teachers did not intervene and ignored/dismissed the bullying in one in six bullying situations (Wachs et al., 2019). Although many teachers may not intervene or ignore the bullying due to lack of specific inclusive education practices (D’Urso et al., 2022), non-intervention of teachers in bullying situations increases the likelihood of victimization and decreases the likelihood of being a defender (Burger et al., 2022). Despite different data about prevalence of ignoring the bullying, it is important to acknowledge its impact on students. Even though, school staff might not have sufficient skills or knowledge in handling bullying incident, ignoring the bullying can put students in a difficult position, since students generally perceive teachers to be effective in intervening in bullying (Wachs et al., 2019). It has been found that teachers who were not trained with antibullying interventions would more likely ignore the incident (Sairanen & Pfeffer, 2011).

The third scale where statistically significant differences were found between teachers and social pedagogues included, where teachers reported disciplining the bully more often as a strategy in handling school bullying incidents compared to social pedagogues. It was the most popular choice for teachers and second choice for social pedagogues. This is in line with earlier research where teachers compared to school counsellors had higher scores on (Bauman et al., 2008), and guidance counsellors would endorse as well (Power-Elliott & Harris, 2012). Previous studies have yielded different data: from 46% of teachers reported (Yoon et al., 2016) to 82% of the teachers who used the strategy to respond to school bullying incidents and used authority-based interventions which demand obedience to authority and focus on externally forced control (Burger et al., 2015). On the other hand, there has been research that found that when teachers were less likely to discipline the bully and show more interpersonal behaviours with high levels of control and closeness, lower levels of bullying and victimization were established (Van Der Zanden et al., 2015). Teachers who perceived their school climate as hostile, used the strategy twice as often compared with teachers who did not (Yoon et al., 2016). Therefore, disciplinary methods could be punitive, which focus on confronting the bully and insisting behavioural change, or non-punitive, which focus on a positive approach (e.g. increasing empathy for victims) (Hensums et al., 2022). Disciplinary sanctions (clearly communicating to the bully that the behaviour was unacceptable; reporting to other adults) was the most effective intervention strategy, therefore low to moderate severity measures were used, and severe measures like detention, suspension and expulsion were excluded (Burger et al., 2022). Also, it is important to note the severity of bullying incident and in the HBQ the scenario given is categorised as moderate level of severity and include elements of both direct and indirect bullying (Bauman et al., 2008). It is found that teachers were more likely to intervene in overt bullying incidents (compared with covert) and tended to focus on the bully as well as ensuring that the bully was suitably punished (Byers et al., 2011).

While was the second most popular subscale in handling school bullying incidents and third choice for social pedagogues, there were no significant differences between two groups. It has been found that 40.8% of teachers would enlist other adults (Burger et al., 2015) and guidance counsellors were also likely to enlist other adults (Power-Elliott & Harris, 2012). What is more, lower levels of victimization were established when teachers enlist other adults to handle bullying (Van Der Zanden et al., 2015). In a common school setting where social pedagogues and teachers work together, the social pedagogue may be the invoked by teachers to intervene in bullying situations.

was the second least used strategy for both teachers and social pedagogues, for which did not yield statistically significant differences. Previously it was stated that 26.7% of teachers would work with the victim (Burger et al., 2015) and school counsellors had higher scores for compared to teachers (Bauman et al., 2008).

To conclude, teacher and social pedagogues differ in strategies they use to handle school bullying incidents, whereas teachers report more, and social pedagogues report more of. The different strategies that teachers use to handle bullying correlate with their attitudes and beliefs toward aggression and its changeability (Grumm & Hein, 2013). When the bullying has occurred, school psychologists can support teachers to develop effective strategies to intervene (Van Der Zanden et al., 2015). This role can be expanded to all support specialists in schools. Different social and emotional competencies protect children and adolescents against bullying and cyberbullying (Zych et al., 2019). Since positive school climate is a protective factor related to lower involvement in any bullying role (Zych et al., 2019), teachers and social pedagogues can contribute a lot in creating a safe learning environment. In dealing with bullying, both the short and long term, supportive-cooperative intervention strategies have been found to be the most successful (Wachs et al., 2019). There is a need for training which provides both teachers and support staff members’ sufficient knowledge and skills to handle school bullying effectively. Therefore, it is crucial that teachers and other school support staff members work collaboratively in creating a safe learning environment by preventing and intervening efficaciously in school bullying.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon request.

Declaration of Conflicts Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

• Bauman, S., Menesini, E., & Colpin, H. (2021). Teachers’ responses to bullying: Next steps for researchers. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 965–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2021.1954904

• Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802379085

• Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O’Brennan, L. M., & Gulemetova, M. (2013). Teachers' and education support professionals' perspectives on bullying and prevention: Findings from a national education association study. School Psychology Review, 42(3), 280–297.

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., & Kollerová, L. (2022). Teachers can make a difference in bullying: Effects of teacher interventions on students’ adoption of bully, victim, bully-victim or defender roles across time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(12), 2312–2327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01674-6

• Burger, C., Strohmeier, D., Spröber, N., Bauman, S., & Rigby, K. (2015). How teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.004

• Byers, D. L., Caltabiano, N., & Caltabiano, M. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards overt and covert bullying, and perceived efficacy to intervene. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(11). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n11.1

• Colpin, H., Bauman, S., & Menesini, E. (2021). Teachers’ responses to bullying: Unravelling their consequences and antecedents. Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 781–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2021.1954903

• Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., Molcho, M., De Mato, M. G., Overpeck, M., Due, P., & Pickett, W. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(S2), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9

• De Luca, L., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2019). The teacher’s role in preventing bullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01830

• D’Urso, G., Fazzari, E., La Marca, L., & Simonelli, C. (2022). Teachers and inclusive practices against bullying: A qualitative study. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02393-z

• Eldridge, M. A., & Jenkins, L. N. (2020). The bystander intervention model: Teacher intervention in traditional and cyber bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention 2(4), 253-263.

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Eriksen, I. M. (2018). The power of the word: Students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition. Educational Research, 60(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1454263

• Escuadra, C. J., Magallanes, K., Lee, S., & Chung, J. Y. (2023). Systematic analysis on school violence and bullying using data mining. Children and Youth Services Review, 150, 107020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107020

• Ey, L., & Campbell, M. (2022). Australian early childhood teachers’ understanding of bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), NP13766–NP13790. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211006355

• Fernández-Alfaraz, M.-L., Nieto-Sobrino, M., Antón-Sancho, Á., & Vergara, D. (2023). Perception of bullying in early childhood education in spain: Pre-school teachers vs. psychologists. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(3), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13030050

• Fraguas, D., Díaz-Caneja, C. M., Ayora, M., Durán-Cutilla, M., Abregú-Crespo, R., Ezquiaga-Bravo, I., Martín-Babarro, J., & Arango, C. (2021). Assessment of school anti-bullying interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3541

• Fredrick, S. S., Coyle, S., & King, J. (2023). Middle and high school teachers’ perceptions of cyberbullying prevention and digital citizenship. Psychology in the Schools, 60(6), 1958–1978. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22844

• Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.12.002

• Gagnon, C., LeBlanc, L., Robert-Mazaye, C., Maïano, C., & Aimé, A. (2022). Intention to intervene in weight-related bullying in elementary school: A qualitative study of the perspectives of teachers and school counselors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 118, 103805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103805

• Gizzarelli, E., Burns, S., & Francis, J. (2023). School staff responses to student reports of bullying: A scoping review. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 34(2), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.680

• Grumm, M., & Hein, S. (2013). Correlates of teachers’ ways of handling bullying. School Psychology International, 34(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034312461467

• Hensums, M., De Mooij, B., Kuijper, S. C., BIRC: the anti-Bullying Interventions Research Consortium, Cross, D., DeSmet, A., Garandeau, C. F., Joronen, K., Leadbeater, B., Menesini, E., Palladino, B. E., Salmivalli, C., Solomontos-Kountouri, O., Veenstra, R., Fekkes, M., & Overbeek, G. (2022). What works for whom in school-based anti-bullying interventions? an individual participant data meta-analysis. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-022-01387-z

• Jacobsen, K., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses to three types of bullying incidents. Professional School Counseling, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5330/PSC.n.2010-11.1

• Kõiv, K. (2019). Comparison of victimized and nonvictimized teachers’ ways of handling schoolbullying incidents. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, LIII, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.01.4

• Kõiv, K., & Aia-Utsal, M. (2019). Social Pedagogues’ Definitions Of Three Types Of Bullying. In P. Besedová, N. Heinrichová, & J. Ondráková (Eds.), ICEEPSY 2019: Education and Educational Psychology, vol 72. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1-15). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.11.1

• Kollerová, L., Soukup, P., Strohmeier, D., & Caravita, S. C. S. (2021). Teachers’ active responses to bullying: Does the school collegial climate make a difference? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 912–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1865145

• Li, C., Wang, P., Martin-Moratinos, M., Bella-Fernández, M., & Blasco-Fontecilla, H. (2022). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying in the digital age and its associated mental health problems in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-02128-x

• Mahon, J., Packman, J., & Liles, E. (2023). Preservice teachers’ knowledge about bullying: Implications for teacher education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 36(4), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1852483

• Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740

• Oldenburg, B., Van Duijn, M., Sentse, M., Huitsing, G., Van Der Ploeg, R., Salmivalli, C., & Veenstra, R. (2015). Teacher characteristics and peer victimization in elementary schools: A classroom-level perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9847-4

• Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano & P. Slee (Eds.), The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-national Perspective (pp. 7–27). London & New York: Routledge.

• Paljakka, A. (2023). Teachers’ awareness and sensitivity to a bullying incident: A qualitative study. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00185-7

• Power-Elliott, M., & Harris, G. E. (2012). Guidance counsellor strategies for handling bullying. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 40(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2011.646947

• Sairanen, L., & Pfeffer, K. (2011). Self-reported handling of bullying among junior high school teachers in Finland. School Psychology International, 32(3), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311401795

• Salmivalli, C., Laninga‐Wijnen, L., Malamut, S. T., & Garandeau, C. F. (2021). Bullying prevention in adolescence: Solutions and new challenges from the past decade. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1023–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12688

• Sercombe, H., & Donnelly, B. (2013). Bullying and agency: Definition, intervention and ethics. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.725834

• Smith, P. K. (2016). Bullying: Definition, Types, Causes, Consequences and Intervention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12266

• Song, K.-H., Lee, S.-Y., & Park, S. (2018). How individual and environmental factors influence teachers’ bullying intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 55(9), 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22151

• Sutter, C. C., Haugen, J. S., Campbell, L. O., & Jones, J. L. T. (2023). Teachers’ motivation to participate in anti-bullying training and their intention to intervene in school bullying: A self-determination theory perspective. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-021-00108-4

• Ten Bokkel, I. M., Roorda, D. L., Maes, M., Verschueren, K., & Colpin, H. (2023). The role of affective teacher–student relationships in bullying and peer victimization: A multilevel meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 52(2), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2029218

• Van Aalst, D. A. E., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2022). A systematic review on primary school teachers’ characteristics and behaviors in identifying, preventing, and reducing bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00145-7

• Van Der Zanden, P. J., Denessen, E. J., & Scholte, R. H. (2015). The effects of general interpersonal and bullying-specific teacher behaviors on pupils’ bullying behaviors at school. School Psychology International, 36(5), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315592754

• Van Geel, M., Goemans, A., Zwaanswijk, W., & Vedder, P. (2022). Does peer victimization predict future suicidal ideation? A meta-analysis on longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 64, 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101577

• Wachs, S., Bilz, L., Niproschke, S., & Schubarth, W. (2019). Bullying intervention in schools: A multilevel analysis of teachers’ success in handling bullying from the students’ perspective. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(5), 642–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618780423

• Wolgast, A., Fischer, S. M., & Bilz, L. (2022). Teachers’ empathy for bullying victims, understanding of violence, and likelihood of intervention. Journal of School Violence, 21(4), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2022.2114488

• Woudstra, M., Rensburg, E., Visser, M., & Jordaan, J. C. (2018). Learner-to-teacher bullying as a potential factor influencing teachers’ mental health. South African Journal of Education, 38, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38n1a1358

• Yoon, J., & Bauman, S. (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of bullying prevention and intervention. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947226

• Yoon, J., Sulkowski, M. L., & Bauman, S. A. (2016). Teachers’ responses to bullying incidents: Effects of teacher characteristics and contexts. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.963592

• Younan, B. (2019). A systematic review of bullying definitions: How definition and format affect study outcome. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 11(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-02-2018-0347

• Zych, I., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Protective factors against bullying and cyberbullying: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008

• Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientific research on bullying and cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 188–198.

  Google Scholar

  Crossref