example of qualitative research paper about bullying

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Understanding Bullying and Cyberbullying Through an Ecological Systems Framework: the Value of Qualitative Interviewing in a Mixed Methods Approach

Faye mishna.

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON M5S 1V4 Canada

Arija Birze

Andrea greenblatt, associated data.

Not applicable.

Recognized as complex and relational, researchers endorse a systems/social-ecological framework in examining bullying and cyberbullying. According to this framework, bullying and cyberbullying are examined across the nested social contexts in which youth live—encompassing individual features; relationships including family, peers, and educators; and ecological conditions such as digital technology. Qualitative inquiry of bullying and cyberbullying provides a research methodology capable of bringing to the fore salient discourses such as dominant social norms and otherwise invisible nuances such as motivations and dilemmas, which might not be accessed through quantitative studies. Through use of a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed methods study, the purpose of the current paper is to demonstrate the ways qualitative interviews contextualize quantitative findings and to present novel discussion of how qualitative interviews explain and enrich the quantitative findings. The following thematic areas emerged and are discussed: augmenting quantitative findings through qualitative interviews, contextualizing new or rapidly evolving areas of research, capturing nuances and complexity of perspectives, and providing moments for self-reflection and opportunities for learning.

Introduction

Bullying and cyberbullying are increasingly recognized as complex phenomena that are considered relationship problems (Mishna et al., 2021a ; Pepler et al., 2010 ; Pepler, 2006 ; Spears et al., 2009 ). Appreciating that individuals are embedded in and both shape and are shaped by systems of relationships (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007 ), researchers often endorse an ecological systems framework as paramount and comprehensive in examining bullying and cyberbullying phenomena 1 (Espelage, 2014 ; Newman et al., 2018 ; Thornberg, 2015 , 2018 ). According to this approach, individuals are embedded in and affected by interconnected and layered systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 , 1992 ). Children’s social-emotional development at school is consequently shaped not only by children’s relationships with their teachers and peers, but also by the interconnections between these relationships and the other layers of social ecology, all of which are considered to contribute to social behavioral patterns (O'Moore & Minton, 2005 ). Bullying and cyberbullying are examined across the nested social contexts in which youth live—encompassing individual features, peer relationships, school, family, and ecological climate such as societal norms and conditions as well as online technology (Cross et al., 2015 ; Johnson, 2010 ; Nesi et al., 2018 ). An ecological systems framework is considered an overarching approach that many theories complement and within which they fit (Bauman & Yoon, 2014 ).

The purpose of the current paper is to demonstrate the contributions of qualitative research in understanding the phenomena of bullying and cyberbullying and enriching and complementing the findings of quantitative methodology (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). Qualitative inquiry of bullying and cyberbullying provides a research methodology capable of bringing to the fore salient discourses and otherwise invisible nuances that might not be accessed through quantitative studies (Dennehy et al., 2020 ).

There are advantages to utilizing mixed methods in conducting research on various topics including cyberbullying (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). When engaging with complex phenomena such as cyberbullying, conceptual and methodological multiplicity offers distinct insights into research questions (McKim, 2017 ; Thornberg, 2011 ). When quantitative and qualitative research are used in combination, it is possible to obtain deeper as well as more comprehensive and accurate understanding of young people’s experiences, which increases the likelihood of informing strategies and responses that can effectively address the needs of children and adolescents (Crivello et al., 2009 ; Darbyshire et al., 2005 ; Fevre et al., 2010 ). The quality of findings may be strengthened when researchers use mixed methods because the data are triangulated (Crivello et al., 2009 ). Data generated through diverse research methods can both complement and contradict each other, which offers an opportunity to better understand the complexities of cyberbullying (Hemming, 2008 ). While quantitative approaches strive for objectivity by examining general concepts, such as cyberbullying, and parceling those concepts into specific, concrete, and understandable behaviors (Fevre et al., 2010 ), qualitative interviews give voice to children and youth, enabling them to express their thoughts and feelings about themselves, their relationships, environments, and the world in which they live (Mishna et al., 2004 ; Chaumba, 2013 ; Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Patton et al., 2017 ).

Through qualitative interviewing, we can step outside the bounds of adult thinking, gaining insights and discovering unanticipated differences in the perceptions of adults and children (Dennehy et al., 2020 ; O’Farrelly, 2021 ). To understand the phenomena of bullying and cyberbullying and inform effective prevention and intervention strategies, it is argued, children’s own views, “are at the heart of these efforts” (O’Farrelly, 2021 , p. 43). Thus, we present findings from the qualitative component of our Canadian federally funded mixed methods longitudinal study on cyberbullying from the perspectives of school-aged youth and their parents and teachers, entitled Motivations for Cyber Bullying: A Longitudinal and Multi-Perspective Inquiry 2 (Mishna et al., 2016 ).

Background Study Description

The objectives of our longitudinal mixed methods study were to (1) explore youth experiences and perspectives and their parents’ and teachers’ conceptions of cyberbullying; (2) explore how youth and adults view the underlying motivations for cyberbullying; (3) document the prevalence rates of cyberbullying victimization, witnessing, and perpetration; (4) identify risk and protective factors for cyberbullying involvement; and (5) explore social, mental health, and health consequences of cyberbullying among children and youth aged 9 to 18 (grades 4, 7, and 10) over 3 years.

In addressing the objectives, we use an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). The study comprised a 2-phase data collection approach in which we first collected the quantitative data and then used findings from the first phase to design and plan the qualitative data phase. The quantitative findings informed both our selection of interview participants and the focus of questions we wanted to explore further in the interviews. The overall intent of the qualitative interviews was to enrich and expand upon the quantitative findings and perhaps generate and explore similarities and contradictions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). In the current paper, we briefly review key quantitative findings. We then discuss the qualitative findings and how they provide more depth and insight and demonstrate the complexities of bullying and cyberbullying motivations, behaviors, and attitudes. In so doing, we present novel discussions of how the qualitative interviews augment the quantitative findings.

Participants

Three participant groups were included in the baseline study sample: (1) students in 4th ( n  = 160), 7th ( n  = 243), and 10th ( n  = 267) grades; (2) their teachers ( n  = 103); and (3) their parents ( n  = 246). A stratified random sampling strategy was utilized to select participants. First, a random sample of 19 schools was drawn from one of the largest school boards in North America. Schools were stratified into three categories of need (low, medium, and high) based on an index developed by the school board that ranked schools on external challenges to student achievement (Toronto District School Board, 2014 ). This stratification ensured representation of ethno-cultural and socioeconomic diversity—factors that potentially impact access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), experiences of cyberbullying, and the manifestation of negative outcomes (Lenhart et al., 2015 ; Steeves & Marx, 2014 ). In year 3 of the study, 10 additional schools were recruited for participation to follow those students transitioning from elementary/middle school to middle/secondary school. A total of 29 schools participated in the study. All students in the selected grades at the original participating schools were invited to participate, as were their parents and teachers.

Participating students and their parents provided data in all 3 years of the study, while matching teachers provided data in year 1 only (as student participants’ teachers changed each year). All three participant groups completed quantitative questionnaire packages, and a sub-sample of each group participated in individual interviews. Quantitative data were collected from students and parents in each year of the study, while qualitative data were collected during years 1 and 3, to allow for enough time to elapse for changes in perceptions of cyberbullying to emerge.

Quantitative Measures and Analysis

In year 1, students completed a 45–60-min quantitative questionnaire package in the school setting, while parents completed a questionnaire package by mail. Questionnaires for teachers, which took approximately 45–60 min to complete, were administered in the participating schools. This study utilized several quantitative measures, including standardized measures and measures developed specifically for the study. Student, parent, and teacher surveys obtained information related to experiences with bullying/cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2012 ; Unpublished Survey), socio-demographics, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) use. Standardized measures assessing student mental health, health, social, and behavioral issues included Child Behavior Check List (Achenbach, 2001a ), Teacher Report Form (Achenbach, 2001b ), Youth Self Report Form (Achenbach, 2001c ), Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985b ), Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (Harter, 2012 ), Social Support Scale for Children (Harter, 1985a ), and Social Support Behaviors Scale (Vaux et al., 1987 ).

Descriptive analyses were conducted to calculate frequencies for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables. We summarized socio-demographic variables among participants in each grade level (4, 7, 10). Items for each outcome scale (e.g., Social Support Scale for Children) were summed to calculate total or subscale scores for each measure.

Findings on Prevalence and Reporting

The quantitative findings in the larger study (Mishna et al., 2015 ) show that rates of cyber witnessing were higher than cyberbullying and victimization at each assessment. In year 1, 24.2 percent reported cyber witnessing, 10.7 percent cyber victimization, and 2.9 percent cyberbullying. In year 2, 21.5 percent reported cyber witnessing, 7.6 percent cyber victimization, and 1.6 percent cyberbullying. In year 3, 25.1 percent reported cyber witnessing, 10.8 percent cyber victimization, and 2.5 percent cyberbullying. Similarly, rates of witnessing traditional bullying were higher than perpetration and victimization at each assessment. In year 1, 53.0% reported witnessing traditional bullying, 23.5% victimization, and 7.8% perpetration. In year 2, 42.6% reported witnessing traditional bullying, 17.3% victimization, and 4.3% perpetration. In year 3, 35.7% reported witnessing traditional bullying, 19.2% victimization, and 5.4% perpetration (Mishna et al., 2015 ). Of note, nearly half of all students (48.3%), who reported cyberbullying involvement in our survey, reported that they had not told an adult about what was happening online (Mishna et al., 2015 ). Moreover, 69.5% of students reported that cyberbullying and physical bullying are equally serious, and 64.5% believed that cyberbullying and “real” life verbal bullying are also equally serious (Mishna et al., 2015 ). These quantitative results serve as a springboard for the following discussion of qualitative findings, demonstrating that qualitative interviews reveal nuanced similarities and differences in the views of adults and youth, elucidating important interconnections among the levels of the ecological system (Mishna et al., 2004 , 2009 ; Dennehy et al., 2020 ).

Qualitative Interview Data Collection and Analysis

Student participants in 4th grade ( n  = 20), 7th grade ( n  = 21), and 10th grade ( n  = 16) in the qualitative sub-sample were purposively selected for interviews from the larger quantitative sample, based on gender, grade, school need level, and whether they reported bullying/cyberbullying victimization, perpetration, or witnessing. After selecting student participants, their teachers ( n  = 30) and parents ( n  = 50) were invited to participate in interviews. Interviews lasted approximately 1 h, ranging in length from 30 to 90 min. All year 1 interviews (with students, parents, and teachers) took place in the school setting and utilized a semi-structured interview guide. Following preliminary analysis, this interview guide was refined for use in the year 3 follow-up phone interviews with the students and parents. Areas explored with students comprised understanding of cyberbullying and how it compares with traditional bullying, experiences of online aggression, and others’ attitudes and responses. Questions were informed by existing literature and the research team’s considerable experience. Parent and teacher interviews included questions on their awareness and understanding of cyberbullying, their child or student’s involvement in cyberbullying, links between cyber and traditional bullying, support, and their responses to cyberbullying.

Using a grounded theory inquiry, data were concurrently analyzed and theorized through constant comparison (Birks & Mills, 2015 ; Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). Through this iterative process, the team used initial interview data and theoretical categories to inform and refine subsequent interview guides and data collection (Charmaz, 2014 ). The team members individually coded a portion of interviews to establish preliminary analytic focuses and inductively identify preliminary themes. Consistent with a grounded theory approach, no hypotheses guided data analysis and coders sought to bracket their biases through reflexive journaling and team discussions of assumptions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). During team meetings, each interview was collectively coded, building upon, revising, and/or removing codes proposed by the initial coder. Emerging categories were developed and expanded. Axial coding promoted connections within and between categories and subcategories and enabled synthesis and explanation (Birks & Mills, 2015 ; Charmaz, 2014 ; Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). Numerous preliminary codes were identified based on emerging themes that were generated and discussed. A holistic “middle-order” approach to coding resulted in a condensed number of initial codes (Saldaña, 2015 ). Axial coding was then used to identify connections within and between themes and subthemes (Birks & Mills, 2015 ; Charmaz, 2006 , 2014 ; Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). Through this iterative process of open, holistic, and focused coding, key themes emerged related to the understanding of traditional and cyberbullying according to the perspectives of the students, parents, and teachers. Measures were employed to ensure trustworthiness and authenticity. Prolonged engagement over the 3 years of the study ensured thick descriptions of the youth and adult narratives (Lietz & Zayas, 2010 ). Rigor was established through documentation for auditing purposes (Padgett, 2008 ). Trustworthiness and transferability were further ensured through reflexive journaling, bracketing, and dense descriptions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ).

While we use examples from our published manuscripts derived from our study entitled, “Motivations of Cyberbullying,” in the current manuscript, we identify new thematic areas and demonstrate how our qualitative interviews complement our quantitative findings. In analyzing findings across the study publications and datasets, we have not previously drawn the conclusions. The unique contribution of the current manuscript is the use of findings of previous publications to generate broader conclusions about the benefits of a mixed-methods approach (qualitative interviews and quantitative survey data) that makes visible the connections across ecological systems levels.

In discussing how qualitative research contributes to understanding bullying and cyberbullying and complements quantitative findings, the following new thematic areas are discussed: augmenting quantitative findings through qualitative interviews, contextualizing new or rapidly evolving areas of research, capturing nuances and complexity of perspectives, and providing moments for self-reflection and opportunities for learning.

Augmenting Quantitative Findings Through Qualitative Interviews

By examining process, context, and meaning for participants, qualitative methodology can augment quantitative findings. Quantitative methodology establishes outcomes and causal relationships and puts forth generalization and predictions (Yilmaz, 2013 ). Our background study which was a longitudinal multi-informant mixed methods study (Tashakkori et al., 1998 ) used grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ) and a longitudinal quantitative design to aid understanding of nuances related to cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2009 ). In creating opportunities for the voices of young people to be heard (Carroll & Twomey, 2020 ; Gilgun & Abrams, 2002 ), qualitative methodology is especially useful for phenomena that are largely unstudied and/or rapidly evolving, such as cyberbullying, by explicating process and a holistic understanding and directions for future research (Mishna & Van Wert, 2013 ; Gilgun & Abrams, 2002 ).

In our paper, “Benchmarks and bellwethers in cyberbullying: The relational process of telling” 3 (Mishna et al., 2020 ), the qualitative analysis revealed relational processes among students that occurred when they considered whether to tell adults about their bullying and cyberbullying experiences. As noted above, almost half of the students who reported cyberbullying involvement relayed that they had not told an adult. Qualitative findings, however, exposed complex interactions that informed their decision-making processes. Reticent about speaking with adults, students turned to friends. It emerged that in addition to sharing, telling friends often served as a bellwether to gauge whether to proceed and report the situation to an adult. Often minimizing the severity of their ordeal, many students had decided against informing adults, frequently mentioning their concern about making a “big deal.” Participant interviews further revealed that media reports of high-profile cases involving cyberbullying can serve as benchmarks through which to assess the severity of their own personal experiences. The qualitative findings in our study helped to contextualize the quantitative data by unpacking and making visible the reasoning and contributing factors, thus increasing understanding of what informs youth’s decisions regarding whether and who to tell about cyberbullying involvement. By augmenting the quantitative data detailing the proportion of youth who do not tell adults, particulars attained through qualitative interview data help to inform and direct prevention and intervention strategies that are concrete and actionable for addressing the more challenging aspects of cyberbullying involvement and disclosure. In offering insights on the relational dynamics among peers and between youth and adults with respect to cyberbullying, the qualitative analysis gave voice to these interconnected layers of the youths’ ecological environment.

Contextualizing New or Rapidly Evolving Areas of Research

While cyberbullying is no longer considered a new phenomenon, the rapid development of technology is continually altering the cyber landscape, creating a need for perpetual knowledge generation (Odgers & Jensen, 2020 ; Rosa et al., 2019 ) and for evolving definitions, measurements, and responses (Spears et al., 2009 ). Moreover, rapid and ongoing technological advances create unique challenges for practitioners, policy makers, and researchers, in remaining current and responding to cyberbullying (George & Odgers, 2015 ; Jäger et al., 2010 ). With youth at the forefront of technological advances in many ways, qualitative methodology is well suited to elicit the experiences and perspectives of young people in promoting in-depth understanding of youth cultures, dynamics, and processes (Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011 ).

The data collection for our background study occurred between 2012 and 2014, during the early stages of attention to and research on sexting (sending and receiving sexually explicit images, videos, and text among youth). In the quantitative questionnaires, we included one question related to sexting for students in grades 7 and 10 and their parents and teachers. Our quantitative survey found that 15.6% of students in grades 7 and 10 had seen nude or sexual photos of friends, family, boyfriend, girlfriend, or other romantic partner online or over a cell phone. Furthermore, 27.8% of teachers had witnessed or were aware of their students viewing sexually explicit images, video, or text on cell phones at school. The data indicated that digital sending and receiving of sexually explicit images, video, or text was a new phenomenon among youth participants in grades 7 and 10 in a rapidly changing digital environment.

We did not explicitly inquire about sexting in the interviews with students, parents, and teachers. Rather, we asked participants about the students’ negative experiences with cyber technology. During analysis of the interview data, however, sexting emerged as a new and pertinent phenomenon among youth, which generated knowledge about rapidly evolving cyber dynamics that warranted further attention and inspired a paper entitled, “Gendered and sexualized bullying and cyberbullying: Spotlighting girls and making boys invisible” (Mishna et al., 2021b ). The qualitative interview data in this instance confirmed our quantitative findings on sexting among youth and allowed us to delve into the complex and nuanced ways participants articulated sexting behaviors along gender lines that both reinforced and were reinforced by gendered sociocultural norms and pressures. In student accounts, boys’ presence and participation in cyberbullying were frequently invisible, such as the non-consensual sharing of sexual images. Blamed for their poor choices, girls were spotlighted and their behavior problematized through negative characterizations. The participants’ focus on girls as responsible for the gendered cyberbullying and non-consensual sharing of images corresponds with how youth are typically educated about digital technologies through an “online safety model” with the focus on youth protecting themselves and avoiding “risky” activities (Johnson, 2015 ). As such, our findings provided context for this rapidly evolving environment that then allowed us to draw links between individual cyberbullying behaviors, understanding and articulation of these behaviors, and the broader influence of patriarchal structures (Mishna et al., 2021b ). The qualitative findings underscored the need to consider key factors that go beyond individual characteristics and behaviors and to develop education and prevention and intervention strategies that address sociocultural norms and values. The qualitative findings stimulated new research endeavors and collaborations with community organizations and academics.

Capturing Nuances and Complexity of Perspectives

Bullying and cyberbullying are exceedingly complex and must be studied within the contexts of the involved youth as well as within the larger social context of youth (Cross et al., 2015 ; Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Johnson & Puplampu, 2008 ; Sainju, 2020 ; Thornberg, 2011 ). An ecological systems framework is appropriate as it provides insight into the interconnected relationships among varying aspects and social layers of an individual’s world (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ). While quantitative research considers and articulates context, qualitative interviews provide an occasion to engage with the richness of students’ perspectives, thoughts, and feelings about themselves and their social worlds (Mishna et al., 2004 ) and allow for a deeper understanding of youth culture and social processes from the vantage point of young people (Chaumba, 2013 ; Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Spears et al., 2009 ; Thornberg & Knutsen, 2011 ). Although qualitative studies are generally bound by a particular timeframe, participants bring their life histories and cumulative experiences to the research engagement (Phoenix et al., 2003 ), which can generate a fulsome and holistic understanding of cyberbullying, taking into consideration individual, family, peer, school, cyber, and sociocultural conditions over time.

Qualitative interview data allow for an interpretive approach that draws upon patterns of understanding, similarity, and contradiction, thereby teasing out underlying assumptions that shape how people define and assess experiences and phenomena such as bullying and cyberbullying (Mishna et al., 2020 , 2021a ). In our paper entitled “Looking Beyond Assumptions to Understand Relationship Dynamics in Bullying” 4 (Mishna et al., 2021a ), analysis of the qualitative interview data exposed persistent and pervasive assumptions about bullying linked to sociocultural norms and understanding of gender. These assumptions shaped participants’ understanding and conclusions of bullying and cyberbullying experiences, behavior, and motivations. Focusing on the visible hurt and injuries associated with physical bullying, participants tended to make comments such as “you’ll heal in a few days,” whereas they noted that with verbal bullying, the mental anguish “might stay for a long term.” This viewpoint that physical bullying was not a relationship problem appeared to be linked to gender stereotypes and social norms regarding the “natural” behavior of girls and boys. These gendered assumptions led participants to suggest that addressing bullying among girls was “complicated” and ongoing, whereas addressing physical bullying among boys was “simpler” and faster, a finding similar to that of Eriksen and Lyng ( 2018 ) who described participants’ descriptions of bullying among boys as “undramatic.” These assumptions appeared to preclude participants from discussing physical bullying among boys in a manner that acknowledged the physical bullying involvement as entrenched in relationship dynamics.

Qualitative interviewing provides an opportunity for participants to express their views and ideas when discussing the topic of interest which can elicit novel conclusions and nuances. As an example, at times, youth who claimed not to have involvement with cyberbullying may go on to describe situations that actually seemed to fit the definition of cyberbullying. In our Spotlighting Girls paper, many participant reports aligned with stereotypes regarding differences in how boys and girls bully others. These stereotypes were shared, however, even when they contradicted participants’ own experiences. For instance, similar to other research findings (Eriksen & Lyng, 2018 ), one participant described a boy as using “guilt trips” as a bullying tactic, yet described boys as only bullying physically. Consequently, relational aggression among boys often goes unnoticed and remains invisible. Similarly, the same behavior displayed by both girls and boys was discounted in boys and highlighted in girls. Boys’ behaviors were often not considered to be bullying because they were positioned as within the bounds of masculine gender norms. For example, one girl reported that “mostly girls, not boys,” bully “because boys would just go over and do some physical things... [Girls would] post embarrassing stuff about the person and do that kind of stuff” (p. 410). It is possible therefore that such actions by boys were not identified as bullying and thus underreported in the quantitative surveys while captured in the interviews. Discrepancies emerged in how cyberbullying had been reported in quantitative measures and how it was described in the interviews. This indicates that qualitative interviews can complement quantitative findings by revealing the complexities and ramifications of social experiences which are not reported in quantitative surveys.

The critical role of witnessing in bullying and cyberbullying is well documented (Salmivalli, 2010 , 2014 ; Spadafora et al., 2020 ; Volk et al., 2014 ). Social experiences related to witnessing are also complex, and bystander decision-making and responses impact both the process and outcomes of bullying incidents (Salmivalli et al., 2011 ). Qualitative research can offer youth the opportunity to explore and explain the motivations and factors they consider in determining whether to intervene, specifically the social costs and benefits of intervening (Spadafora et al., 2020 ). Our qualitative interviews similarly added youth voices concerning the dilemmas they faced in considering whether and how to respond based on emotional and contextual factors (Mishna et al., 2021b ), thus providing nuanced perspectives that serve to augment the quantitative findings related to bystander responses.

Providing Moments for Self-reflection and Opportunities for Learning

Qualitative methodologies are recognized as providing participants opportunities to self-reflect in the context of being listened to empathically (Birch & Miller, 2000 ; Wolgemuth et al., 2015 ). According to a systematic review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies conducted with children and adolescents, participation was mainly considered to be beneficial (Crane & Broome, 2017 ). Negative responses to participating in the research included feeling anxious and upset (Crane & Broome, 2017 ). Research indicates that despite describing negative effects of participating, children and youth reported that overall it was more positive to participate in the research (Crane & Broome, 2017 ) or described the emotional pain they experienced as beneficial in various ways, for example, as “emotionally cleansing” (Wolgemuth et al., 2015 , p. 366). The qualitative research process offers participants the opportunity to come to new understandings and can reveal evolving thoughts within participant narratives (Birch & Miller, 2000 ; Wolgemuth et al., 2015 ). Qualitative processes are iterative and involve probing questions that can prompt dynamic reflection by participants (Wolgemuth et al., 2015 ). Birch and Miller ( 2000 ) explain that they “use the term therapeutic to represent a process by which an individual reflects on, and comes to understand previous experiences in different—sometimes more positive—ways that promote a changed sense of self” (p. 190).

Recognizing the potential risks in research with children and youth (Mishna et al., 2004 ; Crane & Broome, 2017 ), we informed the students in our study of the possible risks should they decide to participate, such as the possibility that they would become upset as we were asking them about hurtful matters, and the limits to confidentiality. Anticipating that some of the questions could lead to a participant becoming distressed or disclosing potentially sensitive or upsetting information, we put in place a protocol (approved by the university and school board research ethics boards) to identify and offer support for students in distress (Mishna et al., 2016 ).

Corresponding with previous research, the reflexivity of sharing their narratives and views seemed to contribute to some participants coming to a different understanding of their experiences. Such reflection was evident in our interviews with students and their parents and teachers. When asked whether he had witnessed cyberbullying, for example, a boy reflected that only in being asked about cyberbullying in the interview did he recognize the behavior as cyberbullying: “When I think about it now, I actually did a few times. I didn’t feel that it’s cyber bullying, I wasn’t thinking that it’s a huge deal. It’s basically a few arguments between people on Facebook, like writing things about each other in public, not in private, chats.”

In another example, a parent reconsidered her views during the interview. This parent first commented that girls and women are “more vindictive” than boys and men, who, she explained, have “your spat, you get over it, and you move on.” After reflecting on her assumptions, she wondered how much of this widely held view of the behavior “is just media driven because I guess the victims that we see on the news, at least in Canada, have been girls, right?… but that doesn’t say that boys aren’t also being bullied.” Similarly, a girl contemplated her assumptions after first casting boys in a favorable light in contrast to girls. In commenting that girls bully each other because of appearance, she praised boys, “because usually they don’t tend to worry about those things...They’re proud of themselves, and they don’t pick on other people. They’re good with what they have.” After pondering these stated differences between boys and girls, this girl surmised, “I think it’s from when we were little because those Barbie dolls are super skinny. We wanted to have blonde hair, blue eyes, and be like Barbie. I think it’s just how maybe we were raised.” Another girl, who asserted that while cyberbullying occurred with equal frequency among boys and girls, added that it was not “a big thing” for boys, in contrast to girls who, “would show it off more, be like oh yah, blah, blah, blah.” Rather than concluding that this difference indicated that cyberbullying was not a big deal for boys, however, this girl attributed the difference between boys and girls to dominant masculinity norms. She asserted that “guys kind of hide it in more” and explained that “they don’t want to show that they’re weak because guys tend to be, they think that they’re very strong, kind of thing.” The evolving perspectives throughout this and the previous exchanges demonstrate the process of deepened understanding that can occur because of qualitative interviewing.

Such new understanding can inspire a desire to act and make change through community engagement. A girl explained that the research was the first time she had spoken with anyone about cyberbullying. This girl’s appraisal of her participation is consistent with findings in which participants may be motivated to take part in research for the opportunity to effect and advocate for change and help others (Cutcliffe & Ramcharan, 2002 ; Wolgemuth et al., 2015 ). She remarked that participating had been a helpful process which led her to,

think of different ways that I could help someone else if I see it happening… Just talking about it makes you think about what could cause it, what could make someone bully someone else. It makes you realize how it could make someone feel. Also, talking about how there isn’t really a support system at school. It makes me want to go and talk to someone to organize it, because it does happen a lot and I know it affects a lot of people

The inclusion of qualitative interviews in mixed methods research brings forth new information about content, process, and meaning that is otherwise not visible. By engaging youth voices as well as adult perspectives through both quantitative measures and qualitative interviews in the mixed methods study discussed in this manuscript, entitled Motivations for Cyberbullying, understanding of bullying and cyberbullying was advanced, thus enriching the quantitative methodology. The findings of the interviews extended knowledge related to bullying and cyberbullying in the following ways, which can inform “bottom-up research and intervention efforts” (Dennehy et al., 2020 , p. 10): augmenting quantitative findings, contextualizing new or rapidly evolving areas of research, capturing nuances and complexity of perspectives, and providing moments for self-reflection and opportunities for learning.

Qualitative research constitutes a significant venue through which to amplify the voices of children and youth (Dennehy et al., 2020 ) and ensures that children and youth’s experiences of the world are represented in understanding social phenomena (Mishna et al., 2004 ; Carroll & Twomey, 2020 ; Chaumba, 2013 ; Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Patton et al., 2017 ). According to Dennehy and colleagues ( 2020 ), engaging youth as co-researchers in cyberbullying research may enhance efforts to ethically and earnestly amplify youth voices. A synthesis by Elsaesser et al. ( 2017 ) supports the view that focusing on collaboratively working with youth to understand and safely navigate the cyber world through education and empowerment is more effective than interventions aimed at restricting ICT use without involving youth. Through quantitative measures and qualitative interviews, our mixed methods study examined participant perspectives regarding bullying and cyberbullying on the various ecological systems levels across the students’ lives. The use of mixed methods facilitated a dialogue between the participant responses to both methodologies, thus highlighting the salience of the overlapping influence and interactions among the systems levels. Such complex and nuanced understanding is necessary to inform meaningful prevention and intervention strategies to address bullying and cyberbullying.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Assembly UG, 1989 ), children and youth have the right to discuss their views and experiences. The Convention states that all children have the right to protections, provisions, participation, and non-discrimination (Assembly UG, 1989 ). Participation entails the right for children to express themselves and have a voice in situations that have to do with and affect them. The importance of listening to children’s voices underscores the limits of adult proxies in representing children’s emotional and social worlds (O’Farrelly, 2021 ). Bullying and cyberbullying fundamentally violate these protections, silence children’s voices, and compromise their healthy development (Greene, 2006 ). Our mixed methods study through quantitative measures and qualitative interviews facilitated a dialogue between the participant responses in both methodologies. This interaction of data types maximizes the voices of and collaboration with participants as well as knowledge generation.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge first and foremost the Toronto District School Board for their utmost commitment to participating in the study, as well as each school for their dedication to both data collection and ensuring that the mental health needs of students that were identified through the study were addressed. We would like to thank the students, parents, and teachers for sharing their experiences with us. We would like to thank the research assistants, without whom we could not have completed this study.

This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Grant Account Number: 410–2011-1001.

Data Availability

Code availability, declarations.

The authors declare no competing interests.

1 Different terms are used to describe the same approach (e.g., social-ecological framework, ecological systems framework, ecological theory, ecological perspectives). For the purposes of this paper, the term ecological systems framework is used.

2 All additional references to this research study will be shortened to “Motivations for Cyberbullying.”

3 All additional references to this paper will be shortened to “Benchmarks and Bellwethers paper.”

4 All additional references to the paper will be shortened to “Relationship Dynamics paper.”

• Achenbach, T. (2001a). Child behavior checklist . ASEBA, University of Vermont. https://store.aseba.org/CHILD-BEHAVIOR-CHECKLIST_6-18/productinfo/201/
• Achenbach, T. (2001b). Teacher report form . ASEBA, University of Vermont. https://store.aseba.org/TEACHERS-REPORT-FORM_6-18/productinfo/301/
• Achenbach, T. (2001c). Youth self report form . ASEBA, University of Vermont. https://store.aseba.org/YOUTH-SELF-REPORT_11-18/productinfo/501/
• Assembly, U. G. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). United Nations, Treaty Series, 1577 (3), pp. 1–23.
• Bauman SA, Yoon J. This issue: Theories of bullying and cyberbullying. Theory into Practice. 2014; 53 (4):253–256. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2014.947215. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch M, Miller T. Inviting intimacy: The interview as therapeutic opportunity. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2000; 3 (3):189–202. doi: 10.1080/13645570050083689. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide . Sage.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.
• Bronfenbrenner U. Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. Child and Youth Care Administrator. 1992; 5 (1):59–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793–828). Wiley.
• Carroll, C., & Twomey, M. (2020). Voices of children with neurodevelopmental disorders in qualitative research: A scoping review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities , 1–16.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research . Sage Publications Ltd.
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Chaumba J. The use and value of mixed methods research in social work. Advances in Social Work. 2013; 14 (2):307–333. doi: 10.18060/1858. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Sage Publications Inc.
• Crane S, Broome ME. Understanding ethical issues of research participation from the perspective of participating children and adolescents: A systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2017; 14 (3):200–209. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12209. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5 ed.). Sage Publications.
• Crivello G, Camfield L, Woodhead M. How can children tell us about their wellbeing? Exploring the potential of participatory research approaches within young lives. Social Indicators Research. 2009; 90 (1):51–72. doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9312-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross D, Barnes A, Papageorgiou A, Hadwen K, Hearn L, Lester L. A social–ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviours. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2015; 23 :109–117. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cutcliffe JR, Ramcharan P. Leveling the playing field? Exploring the merits of the ethics-as-process approach for judging qualitative research proposals. Qualitative Health Research. 2002; 12 (7):1000–1010. doi: 10.1177/104973202129120313. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darbyshire P, MacDougall C, Schiller W. Multiple methods in qualitative research with children: More insight or just more? Qualitative Research. 2005; 5 (4):417–436. doi: 10.1177/1468794105056921. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dennehy R, Meaney S, Walsh KA, Sinnott C, Cronin M, Arensman E. Young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2020; 51 :101379. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2020.101379. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elsaesser C, Russell B, Ohannessian CM, Patton D. Parentng in a digital age: A review of parents’ role in preventing adolescent cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2017; 35 :62–72. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.06.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksen IM, Lyng ST. Relational aggression among boys: Blind spots and hidden dramas. Gender and Education. 2018; 30 (3):396–409. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2016.1214691. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelage DL. Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory into Practice. 2014; 53 (4):257–264. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2014.947216. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fevre R, Robinson A, Jones T, Lewis D. Researching workplace bullying: The benefits of taking an integrated approach. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2010; 13 (1):71–85. doi: 10.1080/13645570802648671. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George MJ, Odgers CL. Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2015; 10 (6):832–851. doi: 10.1177/1745691615596788. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilgun JF, Abrams LS. The nature and usefulness of qualitative social work research: Some thoughts and an invitation to dialogue. Qualitative Social Work. 2002; 1 (1):39–55. doi: 10.1177/1473325002001001743. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene Michael B. Bullying in Schools: A Plea for Measure of Human Rights. Journal of Social Issues. 2006; 62 (1):63–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00439.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter, S. (1985a). Manual for the social support scale for children . University of Denver.
• Harter S. The self-perception profile for children (manual) University of Denver; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harter S. Self-perception profile for adolescents: Manual and questionnaires. Univeristy of Denver, Department of Psychology; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemming PJ. Mixing qualitative research methods in children’s geographies. Area. 2008; 40 (2):152–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00798.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jäger T, Amado J, Matos A, Pessoa T. Analysis of experts’ and trainers’ views on cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools. 2010; 20 (2):169–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson G. Internet use and child development: The techno-microsystem. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology (AJEDP) 2010; 10 :32–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson G, Puplampu K. A conceptual framework for understanding the effect of the Internet on child development: The ecological techno-subsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 2008; 34 :19–28. doi: 10.21432/T2CP4T. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson M. Digital literacy and digital citizenship: Approaches to girls’ online experiences. In: Bailey J, Steeves V, editors. eGirls, eCitizens. University of Ottawa Press; 2015. pp. 339–360. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, H., & Parker, K. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015 . Pew Research Center [Internet & American Life Project].
• Lietz CA, Zayas LE. Evaluating qualitative research for social work practitioners. Advances in Social Work. 2010; 11 (2):188–202. doi: 10.18060/589. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKim CA. The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2017; 11 (2):202–222. doi: 10.1177/1558689815607096. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Antle BJ, Regehr C. Tapping the perspectives of children: Emerging ethical issues in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice. 2004; 3 (4):449–468. doi: 10.1177/1473325004048025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Craig W, Pepler D, Daciuk J. The Bullying and Cyberbullying: Perpetrators. Victims and Witnesses Survey: Unpublished survey; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, McInroy L, Lacombe-Duncan A, Daciuk J. Motivations for cyberbullying study: A longitudinal and multi-perspective inquiry. Toronto, ON: The Authors; 2015. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, McInroy LB, Lacombe-Duncan A, Bhole P, VanWert M, Schwan K, Birze A, Daciuk J, Beran T, Craig W, Pepler DJ, Wiener J, Khoury-Kassabri M, Johnston D. Prevalence, motivations, and social, mental health and health consequences of cyberbullying among school-aged children and youth: Protocol of a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed method study. JMIR Research Protocols. 2016; 5 (2):e83. doi: 10.2196/resprot.5292. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Saini M, Solomon S. Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review. 2009; 31 (12):1222–1228. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Schwan A, Birze A, Van Wert M, McInroy L, Lacombe-Duncan A, Attar-Schwartz S, Daciuk J. Gendered and sexualized bullying and cyber bullying: Spotlighting girls and making boys invisible. Youth & Society. 2020; 52 (3):403–426. doi: 10.1177/0044118X18757150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Van Wert M. Qualitative studies. In: Bauman S, Cross D, Walker J, editors. Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology. New York & London: Routledge; 2013. pp. 238–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Birze A, Greenblatt A, Pepler D. Looking beyond assumptions to understand relationship dynamics in bullying. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12 :1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661724. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishna F, Birze A, Greenblatt A, Khoury-Kassabri M. Benchmarks and bellwethers in cyberbullying: The relational process of telling. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 2021; 3 (4):241–252. doi: 10.1007/s42380-020-00082-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nesi J, Choukas-Bradley S, Prinstein MJ. Transformation of adolescent peer relations in the social media context: Part 1—A theoretical framework and application to dyadic peer relationships. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2018; 21 (3):267–294. doi: 10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman PA, Fantus S, Woodford MR, Rwigema M-J. “Pray that god will change you”: The religious social ecology of bias-based bullying targeting sexual and gender minority youth—A qualitative study of service providers and educators. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2018; 33 (5):523–548. doi: 10.1177/0743558417712013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Moore AM, Minton SJ. Evaluation of the effectiveness of an anti-bullying programme in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression. 2005; 31 (6):609–622. doi: 10.1002/ab.20098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Farrelly C. Bringing young children’s voices into programme development, randomized controlled trials and other unlikely places. Children & Society. 2021; 35 (1):34–47. doi: 10.1111/chso.12390. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Odgers CL, Jensen MR. Annual research review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: Facts, fears, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2020; 61 (3):336–348. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13190. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Padgett D. Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research. Sage; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton DU, Hong JS, Patel S, Kral MJ. A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2017; 18 (1):3–16. doi: 10.1177/1524838015588502. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pepler, D., Craig, W., & O'Connell, P. (2010). Peer processes in bullying: Informing prevention and intervention strategies.
• Pepler DJ. Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2006; 15 (1):16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phoenix A, Frosh S, Pattman R. Producing contradictory masculine subject positions: Narratives of threat, homophobia and bullying in 11–14 year old boys. Journal of Social Issues. 2003; 59 (1):179–195. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.t01-1-00011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosa H, Pereira N, Ribeiro R, Ferreira PC, Carvalho JP, Oliveira S, Coheur L, Paulino P, Simão AV, Trancoso I. Automatic cyberbullying detection: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019; 93 :333–345. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainju, K. D. (2020). Beyond the schoolyard: A multilevel examination of individual, school and school district variables associated with traditional and cyber peer aggression. Child & Youth Care Forum.
• Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli C. Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2010; 15 (2):112–120. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli C. Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory into Practice. 2014; 53 (4):286–292. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2014.947222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli C, Voeten M, Poskiparta E. Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2011; 40 (5):668–676. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.597090. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spadafora N, Marini ZA, Volk AA. Should I defend or should I go? An adaptive, qualitative examination of the personal costs and benefits associated with bullying intervention. Canadian Journal of School Psychology. 2020; 35 (1):23–40. doi: 10.1177/0829573518793752. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spears B, Slee P, Owens L, Johnson B. Behind the scenes and screens: Insights into the human dimension of covert and cyberbullying. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/journal of Psychology. 2009; 217 (4):189–196. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.189. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steeves, V., & Marx, G. T. (2014). Safe schools initiatives and the shifting climate of trust. Responding to school violence: Confronting the Columbine effect , 105–124.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.
• Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Sage.
• Thornberg R. ‘She’s weird!’—The social construction of bullying in school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society. 2011; 25 (4):258–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00374.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornberg, R. (2015). The social dynamics of school bullying: The necessary dialogue between the blind men around the elephant and the possible meeting point at the social-ecological square. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics, 3 (2), 161–203.
• Thornberg R. School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2018; 39 (1):144–158. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2017.1330680. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornberg, R., & Knutsen, S. (2011). Teenagers’ explanations of bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum,
• Toronto District School Board. (2014). The 2014 Learning Opportunities Index: Questions and answers .
• Vaux A, Riedel S, Stewart D. Modes of social support: The social support behaviors (SS-B) scale. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1987; 15 (2):209–232. doi: 10.1007/BF00919279. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volk AA, Dane AV, Marini ZA. What is bullying? A Theoretical Redefinition. Developmental Review. 2014; 34 (4):327–343. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolgemuth JR, Erdil-Moody Z, Opsal T, Cross JE, Kaanta T, Dickmann EM, Colomer S. Participants’ experiences of the qualitative interview: Considering the importance of research paradigms. Qualitative Research. 2015; 15 (3):351–372. doi: 10.1177/1468794114524222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yilmaz K. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education. 2013; 48 (2):311–325. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The relationship between teachers’ disciplinary practices and school bullying and students’ satisfaction with school: The moderated mediation effects of sex and school belonging

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Institute for Educational Research, Belgrade, Serbia

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation University of Belgrade, Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Belgrade, Serbia

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration

Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation

Affiliation Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research, Belgrade, Serbia

Roles Formal analysis, Software, Visualization

• Marina Kovacevic Lepojevic, 
• Marija Trajkovic, 
• Luka Mijatovic, 
• Branislava Popovic-Citic, 
• Lidija Bukvic, 
• Milica Kovacevic, 
• Ana Parausic Marinkovic, 
• Mladen Radulovic

• Published: May 28, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466
• Reader Comments

An authoritative school climate, along with greater teacher support and warm relations among peers are frequently connected with less school bullying. The main aim of this paper is to examine the direct link as perceived by students between teachers’ disciplinary practices and bullying in school and students’ satisfaction with school. The indirect relationships are explored via the mediation of school belonging and the moderation of sex. High school students (N = 860, 40.4% male students) completed the Delaware School Climate Survey, the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale, and the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale at a single time point. In general, teachers’ disciplinary practices have significant direct effects on perceptions of bullying and satisfaction with school. Positive disciplinary (direct effect = .28, SE = .04) and SEL techniques (direct effect = .22, SE = .04) are related to bullying only among males, while punitive techniques are directly linked to school bullying unrelated to sex (b = .03, SE = .05). Similarly, the effect of positive disciplinary (direct effect = .27, SE = .08) and SEL (direct effect = .21, SE = .08) techniques on satisfaction with school was significant only among males. A direct relationship between punitive disciplinary techniques and satisfaction with school was not recognized. The mediation analysis revealed the indirect effects of teachers’ disciplinary practices on the dependent variables via school belonging to be stronger among females. Teachers’ negative modeling through punitive disciplinary practices leads to more bullying. School belonging may serve as a protective factor related to the negative impact of teachers’ disciplinary practices on school bullying as well as satisfaction with school, especially among females. Interventions should be focused on fostering school belonging along with the development of positive sex-specific disciplinary practices.

Citation: Kovacevic Lepojevic M, Trajkovic M, Mijatovic L, Popovic-Citic B, Bukvic L, Kovacevic M, et al. (2024) The relationship between teachers’ disciplinary practices and school bullying and students’ satisfaction with school: The moderated mediation effects of sex and school belonging. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0303466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466

Editor: Gianpiero Greco, University of Study of Bari Aldo Moro, ITALY

Received: September 15, 2023; Accepted: April 25, 2024; Published: May 28, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Kovacevic Lepojevic et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The data collection was funded by the Council of Europe and the European Union within the project Promotion of Diversity and Equality in Serbia, Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Turkey (Horizontal Facility II, 2019-2022), BH4674/2021/7, and preparation of the manuscript was funded by the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Contract No. 451-03-47/2023-01/200018 and No. 451-03-66/2024-03/200039). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: NO: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

By its definition school bullying involves the repeated intent to harm and an imbalance of power between the aggressor and the victim [ 1 ]. Such an imbalance of power may stem from physical strength, social status within the group, or a certain vulnerability (e.g. appearance, learning difficulties, family situation, personality characteristics) [ 2 ]. Less school bullying is frequently connected with an authoritative school climate, and more teacher, peer and parental support [ 3 – 5 ]. Scientific results imply that instead of being considered in terms of the individual’s behaviour, bullying should be considered as a structural issue [ 6 ]. Harsh discipline in schools is generally directly related to more experiences of bullying as a consequence of negative teacher-student modeling [ 7 ]. Punishment is often used in traditionally oriented schools and reflects a policy of zero tolerance and the frequent use of suspensions and exclusions from school. Research results indicate that a supportive disciplinary framework is recognized in effective bullying prevention programmes [ 8 ], and even punitive discipline may be successful in achieving the short-term effects of managing student behaviour [ 9 ]. Teachers’ SEL disciplinary practices are the most effective in developing students’ self-discipline and long-term positive developmental changes [ 10 ]. The results of evaluation studies show that SEL in combination with positive disciplinary techniques achieves better results than without them [ 11 , 12 ]. Certain authors stress that in an authoritative school climate, both responsiveness (support) and demandingness (structure) are equally valued, and together are viewed as instrumental for effective discipline in both the short and long term [ 13 ]. There has been a notable shift in school programmes from bullying prevention to the systemic integration of the evidence-based practices of social and emotional learning (SEL) [ 14 ]

One of the frequently examined indicators of positive youth developmental outcomes is student life satisfaction [ 15 ]. Subjective well-being is most often interpreted as experiencing a high level of positive affect, a low level of negative affect, and a high degree of satisfaction with one’s life [ 16 ]. The concept of subjective well-being has frequently been used synonymously with ‘‘happiness”, meaning that maximising one’s well-being has been viewed as maximising one’s feelings of happiness [ 16 ]. However, self- reports of being happy do not necessarily mean that people are psychologically well [ 16 ]. As represented in the Eudaimonic Activity Model, eudaimonic and hedonic aspects of well-being are closely related [ 17 ]. Life satisfaction is one of the most important indicators of youth well-being and represents their cognitive evaluation of their quality of life [ 18 ]). This might be conceptualized as a general life satisfaction assessment or within specific life domains (e.g. satisfaction with friends, family, and school experiences) [ 19 , 20 ]. The author suggests the variability in satisfaction ratings across life domains, with adolescents reporting the greatest dissatisfaction with their school experiences [ 21 ]. Creating a balance between responsiveness and demandingness in the classroom is connected to higher student satisfaction with school [ 22 ]. The interpersonal relations between students and teachers and among peers has been found to be the most important school climate factor which affects student satisfaction with school [ 22 ]. The research results suggest that teachers should focus more on positive disciplinary practices as they are linked to improved outcomes for both students and teachers [ 23 ]. Monitoring the effects of the RULER program–an evidence-based approach to social and emotional learning, significant improvements in multiple dimensions of the school climate, including disciplinary practice, were found to be related to satisfaction with school [ 24 ].

Previous research recognized school belonging as a good mediator in explaining the link between different aspects of the school climate and various positive and negative student outcomes such as problematic internet use [ 25 ]; academic success [ 26 ]; bullying, and symptoms of depression [ 27 ], etc. School belonging is defined as the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the school social environment [ 28 ]. The research results indicate that school belonging is closely related to many positive developmental outcomes such as higher student cognitive and behavioural engagement, higher motivation and academic success [ 29 , 30 ]; fewer problems and higher prosocial behaviour [ 31 , 32 ], and higher life satisfaction [ 33 ]. The results show that students in positive school climates report higher levels of school belonging and fewer physical, emotional, and cyberbullying behaviours [ 27 , 34 ]. School belonging mediates certain school climate aspects (e.g. teacher-student relationships, and a sense of fairness) in relation to students’ life satisfaction [ 35 ]. School belonging may not be relevant for negative disciplinary practices. Supportive teaching practices are closely linked to school connectedness, while punitive disciplinary practice has no significant correlation with school connectedness [ 36 ]. Class level path analysis showed that the effect of the student-teacher relationship on bullying behaviour is mediated by the student-student relationship [ 37 ].

Numerous differences in peer socialization and variances between males and females have been recognized to date, starting from girls’ relational orientation, a tendency to build more meaningful relationships, interpersonal sensitivity and prosocial orientation [ 38 ], suggesting greater male engagement in bullying [ 5 , 39 ], less connectedness with school [ 40 ], and less positive relationships with teachers [ 41 , 42 ]. To our knowledge, sex moderation of the mediation of school belonging in examining the relationship between teacher disciplinary practices and school bullying behaviour and satisfaction with school has not yet been explored.

The main aim of this paper is to examine the links between teachers’ disciplinary practices perceived by students with bullying in school and with students’ satisfaction with school. The indirect relationships are explored via the mediation of school belonging and the moderating role of sex. The proposed model includes how (the mediating effect), when (the moderating effect), and when and how (moderated mediating effect) teachers’ disciplinary practices affect both bullying and students’ school satisfaction ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g001

Based on authoritative discipline theory [ 43 , 44 ] and Stockard and Mayberry’s [ 45 ] theoretical framework for the school climate which imply that a healthy balance between responsiveness (support) and demandingness (structure) lead to more self-discipline [ 46 ] we hypothesized that: punitive discipline is negatively related to satisfaction with school and positively to bullying; teachers’ socio-emotional techniques as well positive disciplinary techniques are negatively related to school bullying and positively to students’ satisfaction with school. School belonging is expected to have mediating potential in the explanation of the relationship between disciplinary practices and bullying in schools and disciplinary practices and students’ satisfaction with school. Additionally, we expect to find that the proposed interactions differ by sex We hypothesized that socioemotional learning and positive disciplinary techniques can help to develop school belonging, especially at females. Also, we expect that teachers’ negative modeling via the use of punitive discipline is expected to affect males more directly. We consider that further exploring of the sex moderation between teacher practices and school belonging can help to the developing of school belonging, greater satisfaction of students and prevention of school bullying.

Materials and methods

Students from 11 Belgrade (Serbia) high schools from the first to the fourth grade (N = 860, 40.4% male students) completed the Delaware School Climate Survey [ 47 ], the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale [ 19 ], and the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale [ 28 ] at a single time point from April 5 th to May 28 th 2021. Measures The Delaware Positive, Punitive, and SEL Techniques Scale [ 47 ] measures students’ perceptions of the extent to which three types of techniques are used in their school to manage student behaviour. The positive behaviour techniques consist of 4 items (e.g. Students are often praised), the use of punitive/corrective techniques of 4 items (e.g. Students are punished a lot), and the use of SEL techniques of 5 items (e.g. Students are taught to feel responsible for their behaviour). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranged from 0.77 (Punitive Techniques), 0.83 (Positive Techniques) to 0.85 (SEL Techniques) and McDonald’s omega from 0.77 (Punitive Techniques), 0.84 (Positive Techniques) to 0.85 (SEL Techniques) for the student sample. The Bullying School-Wide subscale comprises 4 items which explore students’ perceptions of bullying in their schools (e.g. In this school, bullying is a problem). The rating response range was from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficient is 0.76. The Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS) [ 19 ] is a 6-point Likert-type self-report scale (ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6)), designed for children aged 8 to 18. The MSLSS is designed to provide a holistic assessment of the wellbeing of young people. It has five subscales: family, friends, school, the living environment and self. The school domain items rep-resent satisfaction with school life (e.g. I enjoy school activities). The value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.84 and McDonald’s omega is 0.85. The Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale (PSSM) comprises 18 items (e.g. Most teachers at this school are interested in me.) to be assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) [ 28 ]. The internal consistency is 0.84 measured by Cronbach’s alpha and 0.90 measured by McDonald’s omega.

Procedure . Verbal informed consent from participants is obtained. At first we presented the research and relevant procedures involve with data collection and usage, and ask to declare if someone doesn’t want to participate. It was witnessed by school psychologist. One school hour was necessary for completing the questionnaire. In the Republic of Serbia there is no regulation at all about parental consent for children participating in scientific research, but Family law, Official Gazette, no 18/2005, 72/11 and 6/2015,and Law about protection of the rights of the patients, Official Gazette, no 45/2013-19, 25/2019-3, respect privacy of children above 15 years (e.g. they make decisions about medical treatments by their own). This study was approved by the Research Ethics and Conduct Committee of the CEPORA–Center for Positive Youth Development (no. 12/2021 ES)

Descriptive statistics and the intercorrelations of the variables

Descriptive and correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS 21.0. PROCESS analyses were performed to test the mediating role of school belonging in predicting bullying and students’ school satisfaction by teachers’ disciplinary practices (positive, punitive and SEL techniques) along with the moderating role of sex. The entire model was previously tested in IBM AMOS version 25.

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the study variables: positive, punitive and SEL techniques, school belonging, bullying and students’ school satisfaction and their intercorrelations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.t001

The correlation results indicated that bullying was negatively associated with SEL techniques, school belonging and students’ school satisfaction (p < 0.01) and positively with punitive techniques (p < 0.01). Students’ school satisfaction was negatively related to punitive techniques, bullying and age (p < 0.01) and positively to the other study variables. The correlations of age with positive techniques, SEL techniques, school be-longing and students’ school satisfaction were negative and weak (p < 0.01).

Moderated mediation analyses results

The entire model was previously tested in IBM AMOS version 25. Results suggested the model can be considered unsatisfactory: Chi-square value was significant (χ2 = 780.396, p < .001), the TLI and CFI values were below the recommended threshold of 0.90, while the RMSEA was far above the prescribed value of 0.08 (TLI =.-.111, CFI = .704, RMSEA = .339). For that reason, direct and indirect effects were separately tested using the SPSS macro PROCESS suggested by Hayes [ 48 ]. Using proposed model number 59, six PROCESS analyses were conducted–one for each pair of predictor and dependent variables. In this way the independent contribution of the predictors and their relations with the mediator were examined with sex as the moderator. Age was treated as a covariate and its role will not be presented within the results or discussed. A full information maximum likelihood estimator was used which could also handle missing values. The direct, indirect, and total effects were calculated. 5000 bootstrap samples were used. Bootstrapping is a non-parametric method which bypasses the is-sue of non-normality distribution [ 49 ]. All used variables (except sex) were standardized prior to test and effects and their standard errors (SE) are shown.

As regards the first model (F(5,688) = 40.86, p < .01), positive techniques positively predicted school belonging (b = .36, SE = .11, p < .01), sex also predicted the mediator variable (b = -.16, SE = .007, p < .05), while the interaction between positive techniques and sex on school belonging was not significant. Bullying was negatively predicted by school belonging (b = -.38, SE = .15, p < .05) and positively by positive techniques (b = .69, SE = .14, p < .01). Interaction of sex and positive techniques negatively predicted bullying (b = -.3, SE = .08, p < .01) which explained 1.5% of the variance in predicting bullying, while interaction of sex and belonging didn’t have significant effect on dependent variable. Further probing of the significant interaction indicated that the conditional direct effect was significant (and positive) only for males (direct effect = .39, SE = .06, p < .01), while the indirect effects of positive techniques on bullying did not differ between males and females–the index of moderated mediation was not significant (index = -.09, bootSE = .052, 95% BootLLCI = -.2—BootULCI = .01). The entire first model explained 22,9.% of the variance in bullying ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g002

Within the second model (F(5,692) = 80.09, p < .01), punitive techniques (b = .11, SE = .38, p = .47) and sex (b = -.13, SE = .07, p = .06) as the predictors did not affect school belonging, while the interaction of sex and punitive techniques (b = -.30, SE = .07, p < .01) was significant in predicting the mediator. This interaction explained an additional proportion of the variance in school belonging (2%) with significant effects in both males (effect = -.22, SE = .05, p < .01) and females (effect = -.52, SE = .04, p < .01), showing that punitive techniques exerted a stronger negative effect on school belonging among females. Bullying was positively predicted by punitive techniques (b = .49, SE = .1, p < .01) and sex (b = .22, SE = .06, p < .001), while belonging didn’t have significant effect on bullying in context of these variables (b = .16, SE = .12, p = .18). Interaction of sex and punitive techniques (b = -.03, SE = .06, p = .63) did not influence the criterion, but interaction between belonging and sex did (b = -.23, SE = .07, p < .01), explaining an additional proportion of the variance in bullying (1%) and showing that there is significant negative effect of belonging on bullying among girls (effect = -.31, SE = .04, p < .01) and no such effect among boys. Consequently, the indirect effects of punitive techniques on bullying were positive and significant females (indirect effect = .16, bootSE = .02, 95% BootLLCI = .12—BootULCI = .21) and unsignificant for males (indirect effect = .02, bootSE = .01, 95% BootLLCI = -.01—BootULCI = .04). The index of moderated mediation was significant (index = .14, bootSE = .03, 95% BootLLCI = .09—BootULCI = .20). The entire second model explained 37% of the variance in bullying ( Fig 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g003

As regards the third model (F(5,682) = 37.65, p < .01), school belonging was predicted by SEL techniques (b = .29, SE = .1, p < .01), sex (b = -.24, SE = .06, p < .01) and their interaction (b = .2, SE = .06, p < .01). The sex-SEL interaction explained an additional 1% of the variance in the mediator with significant positive effects in both males (effect = .49, SE = .05, p < .01) and females (effect = .69, SE = .04, p < .01), indicating again a stronger effect among females. Bullying was positively predicted by SEL techniques (b = .68, SE = .14, p < .01) and negatively by school belonging (b = -.42, SE = .16, p < .01). Sex (b = .1, SE = .07, p = .15) and the sex x belonging interaction (b = -.02, SE = .09, p = .81) didn’t significantly influence the criterion, while sex x SEL techniques interaction had significant affect (b = -.36, SE = .09, p < .01) This interaction explained 2% of the variance in bullying. The conditional direct effect of SEL techniques on bullying was significant for males (direct effect = .32, SE = .06, p < .01), but not for females. The indirect effects were significant for both males (indirect effect = -.22, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = -.30—BootULCI = -.13) and females (indirect effect = -.32, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = -.40—BootULCI = - .25). and they did not significantly differ between males and females (index = -.11, bootSE = .06, 95% BootLLCI = -.22—BootULCI = .01). The entire first model explained 22,93% of the variance in bullying ( Fig 4 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g004

As regards the fourth model (F(5,690) = 192.73, p < .01), the prediction of the mediator was significant for positive techniques (b = .3, SE = .11, p < .01), sex (b = -.19, SE = .06, p < .01) and their interaction (b = .14, SE = .07, p < .05), while the effects on the mediator were significant among both males (effect = .44, SE = .05, p < .01) and females (effect = .58, SE = .04, p < .01). This interaction is significantly higher among females. When it comes to predicting students’ school satisfaction, significant effects were found for positive techniques (b = .32, SE = .1, p < .01), school belonging (b = .62, SE = .12, p < .01), sex (b = .15, SE = .05, p < .01), and the sex x positive techniques interaction (b = -.16, SE = .06, p < .01), while sex x school belonging interaction didn’t predict school satisfaction. The conditional direct effect was significant just for males (direct effect = .16, SE = .05, p < .001). The indirect effects were significant for both males (indirect effect = .30, boot SE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = .23—BootULCI = .38) and females (indirect effect = .43, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = .36—BootULCI = .5), again indicating a stronger effect among females. The index of moderated mediation was significant (index = .13, bootSE = .05, 95% BootLLCI = .03—BootULCI = .23), while the whole model explained 58% of the variance in students’ school satisfaction ( Fig 5 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g005

In the fifth model (F(5,698) = 198.93, p < .01), the mediator variable was predicted by sex (b = -.17, SE = .07, p < .01) and the interaction of sex and punitive techniques (b = -.24, SE = .07, p < .01), which explained 2% of the variance in school belonging. The independent variable alone did not affect the mediator (b = .07, SE = .11, p = .57). The negative effects of the interaction on the mediator were significant in both males (effect = -.22 SE = .05, p < .01) and females (effect = -.5, SE = .04, p < .01), but higher among females. Students’ school satisfaction was directly predicted by school belonging (b = .84, SE = .1, p < .01) and sex (b = .15, SE = .05, p < .001), while the influences of punitive techniques (b = .02, SE = .09, p = .86), and interaction and sex (b = -.05, SE = .05, p = .35) and interaction of school belonging and sex (b = -.06, SE = .06, p = .3) were insignificant. Due to the latter results, the conditional direct effects were not shown. The indirect effects were significantly higher among females (indirect effect = -.36, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = -.44—BootULCI = -.29) than males (indirect effect = -.17, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = -.25—BootULCI = -.1). The index of moderated mediation was significant (index = -.19, bootSE = .05, 95% BootLLCI = -.3—BootULCI = -.09), while the model in total explained 59% of the variance in students’ school satisfaction ( Fig 6 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g006

As regards the sixth model (F(5,690) = 203.05, p < .01), SEL techniques (b = .23, SE = .1, p < .05), sex (b = -.27, SE = .06, p < .01) and their interaction (b = .22, SE = .06, p < .001) predicted the mediator. The SEL techniques x sex interaction explained 1% of the variance of school belonging, while the positive effects on the mediator were significant and lower for males (effect = .45 SE = .05, p < .01) compared to females (effect = .68, SE = .04, p < .01). The effects of SEL techniques (b = .26, SE = .1, p < .01), school belonging (b = .68, SE = .12, p < .001), sex (b = .13, SE = .05, p < .01) and sex x SEL techniques (b = -.13, SE = .06, p < .05) were significant predictors of school satisfaction, while school belonging x sex interaction didn’t have effect. Sex influenced the relation between the independent and criterion variables, where the conditional direct effect was significant only for males (direct effect = .12, SE = .05, p < .01). The indirect effects were significant for both males (indirect effect = .32, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = .25—BootULCI = .4) and females (indirect effect = .51, bootSE = .04, 95% BootLLCI = .43—BootULCI = .59), with a stronger effect among females once again. The index of moderated mediation was significant (index = .19, bootSE = .05, 95% BootLLCI = .08—BootULCI = .31), while the model in total explained 60% of the variance in students’ school satisfaction ( Fig 7 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.g007

As expected, punitive discipline is directly and positively related to school bullying unrelated to sex, indicating the impact of teachers’ negative modeling on student-student behaviour and bullying as its negative manifestation [ 7 , 43 ]. Unexpectedly, positive disciplinary and SEL techniques are positively related to bullying, and that link is found to be relevant only for male students which is contrary to previous findings [ 24 , 50 , 51 ]. One of the explanations for this is that SEL might be perceived as a Trojan horse to increase classroom management and social control, instead of cultivating the positive, full development of the child and the adult educator, including care-givers [ 31 ]. The positive relation between positive disciplinary techniques and SEL with school bullying might be explained by difficulties in implementation at secondary school level if such techniques are not applied appropriately at previous educational levels and simultaneously in other ecological contexts. These findings might imply the need to apply systemic SEL as an approach to create equitable learning conditions which actively involve all Pre-K to Grade 12 students in learning and developing social, emotional, and academic competencies [ 52 , 53 ]. Difficulties in school staff motivation and capabilities are also recognized [ 54 ]. Positive and SEL disciplinary techniques which are not properly implemented might be perceived as more teacher- oriented [ 54 ]. Teachers are then perceived to have a greater share of the power similar to punitive school discipline. These positive relations might be additionally explained in a reactive way, meaning that teachers respond to severe bullying behaviour inappropriately. Teachers might not recognize when incidents of bullying should be considered as severe, requiring help from other agencies and services. The author has already noticed that the severity of peer victimization may moderate the relationship between socio-emotional learning and school bullying [ 51 ]. As the victims of bullying have said, teachers often react to the perpetrator, without offering any support to the victim and the whole class after such incidents [ 55 ]. Teachers may underestimate verbal incidents of bullying, even suffer from bullying themselves, or enable bullying by their inappropriate reaction to the bulling incidents which occur in the classroom [ 56 , 57 ]. As has already been noted in previous research, male students tend to “ignore incidents”, or report only more severe incidents of bullying compared to female students who are more sensitive to minor incidents, which might affect findings about gen-der-specific interactions [ 58 ].

The interesting finding that positive discipline and SEL directly relate to student satisfaction with school only for male students might be explained by the fact that although females are more rationally oriented, have positive relations with teachers [ 41 , 42 ], and build better relations with their peers [ 58 ], parents [ 59 ] and other important figures, supportive teacher relationships might mean more to male students than their female counterparts. Even punitive disciplinary practice was not directly related to satisfaction with school, while school belonging was found to be a good protective factor especially among female students, which is not surprising because of their relational and contextual orientation [ 38 ]. The full mediation of school belonging established in relation to SEL and positive disciplinary techniques on students’ satisfaction with school implies that interventions focused on fostering school belonging along with efforts toward establishing a positive school climate might positively affect students’ wellbeing and have a negative effect on school bullying [ 24 , 32 ]. According to the current study, school belonging is sex-specific and partly explains bullying behaviour [ 27 , 58 ] and student wellbeing [ 34 , 35 ]. The qualitative differences between female and male students indicate that both might use bullying as a tool to feel a sense of belonging, girls to prevent being excluded from the group and boys to avoid being perceived as weak [ 58 ].

As has already been noted, bullying does not occur in a vacuum [ 60 ]. This study highlights the importance of the disciplinary strategies used by teachers in schools, how they manage their classrooms and how this is related to bullying and satisfaction with school. The data about sex relevance within the examined interactions are of special value in this study. The research results are in line with a noticeable shift in bullying prevention towards evidence-based practices of social and emotional learning (SEL) leading to a variety of positive outcomes for students and teachers alike [ 14 , 50 ]. Interventions for developing school belonging are highly recommended in order to prevent school bullying and improve students’ positive developmental outcomes. We recommend that a good fit for bullying prevention in middle and high schools might have teacher practice of adopting greater youth participation at classroom level along with practicing SEL. It’s expected that greater youth participation, and more group discussion will strengthen school belonging, equity impact and less bullying [ 61 ].

This study is limited by its cross-sectional design. Longitudinal or intervention re-search is necessary to provide more detailed answers to the research question regarding the relation between school climate aspects and school bullying. A further limitation relates to the lack of a class level analysis which could provide more exact data. Longitudinal data could provide some evidence of both the short and long term effects of teachers’ disciplinary practices. This research is mono-informant in nature with the measurements being restricted to student self-rating scales. For future studies we recommend involving more global measures of students’ life satisfaction so as to avoid the similarity between the school belonging and satisfaction with school constructs used in the current study. Additionally, measuring bullying victimization as well as disciplinary infractions would be important in order to gain a better under-standing of the mechanisms underlying teachers’ disciplinary practices.

Supporting information

S1 dataset..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303466.s001

• 1. Olweus D. Bullying at School. In: Aggressive Behavior. Huesmann L.R, editor. The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology. Boston, MA: Springer; 1994. 97–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9116-7_5
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 9. Landrum T. J, Kauffman J. M. Behavioral approaches to classroom management. In: Evertson C. M. Weinstein C.M, C, Mahwah S, editors, Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. NJ: Erlbaum. 2006; pp: 47–71.
• 12. Gueldner B. A, Feuerborn L. L, Merrell K. W. Social and emotional learning in the classroom: Promoting mental health and academic success. Second Edition. London, NY: Guilford Publications; 2020.
• 13. Bear G. G, Whitcomb S. A, Elias M. J, Blank J. C. SEL and schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. In: Durlak J. A., Domintrovich C. E., editors. Handbook of social and emotional learning (SEL): Research and practice, New York, NY: Guilford; 2015; pp: 453–467.
• 20. Huebner S. Manual for the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Available from: https://ww2.cas.sc.edu/psyc/sites/default/files/directory_files/huebslssmanual_0.pdf , 2001
• 45. Stockard J, Mayberry M. Effective educational environments. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin; 1992.
• 46. Bear G. G. School discipline and self-discipline: A practical guide to promoting prosocial student behavior. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.
• 48. Hayes A. F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press; 2013.
• 50. Fredrick S. S, Traudt S, Nickerson A. Social emotional learning practices in schools and bullying prevention. Encyclopedia of Education. New York: Routledge; 2022.
• 53. Rosario-Ramos E. M, Rivas-Drake D, Jagers R. J. Implementing SEL with an Equity Lens: The Role of “Stretching” in Teachers’ Practice. In Motivating the SEL field forward through equity (Vol. 21, pp. 113–126). Emerald Publishing Limited; 2021.

Using Qualitative Methods to Measure and Understand Key Features of Adolescent Bullying: A Call to Action

• Original Article
• Published: 16 February 2022
• Volume 4 , pages 230–241, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Natalie Spadafora   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8498-1712 1 ,
• Anthony A. Volk 1 &
• Andrew V. Dane 2  

654 Accesses

5 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Bullying is a significant problem that has received a great amount of research attention, yet a basic definition of bullying has proven challenging for researchers to agree upon. Differences of definitions between academics and the public pose additional problems for the ongoing study and prevention of bullying. Qualitative methodologies may afford unique insights into the conceptualization of bullying and how we might reconcile existing definitional differences. In particular, we focus on the theoretically derived definition created by Volk et al. ( 2014 ). In this definition, three main aspects of bullying behavior are considered: (1) there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim, (2) the behavior is goal-directed, and (3) the behavior has a harmful impact. We review the qualitative evidence in support of the definition while simultaneously drawing attention to the potentials of qualitative research for furthering our understanding of all definitions of bullying. We argue that qualitative methods provide researchers with a unique perspective that cannot be practically obtained by the more common use of quantitative methods and offer suggestions for future methodological practices to study bullying.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Gender and Mental Health

Examining the short and long-term impacts of child sexual abuse: a review study

Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying Intervention Programs Globally: a Meta-analysis

Data availability.

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Adams, A., & Cox, A. L. (2008). Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups.

Baas, N., de Jong, M. D. T., & Drossaert, C. H. C. (2013). Children’s perspectives on cyberbullying: Insights based on participatory research. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 16 (4), 248–253.

Article   Google Scholar  

Berry, K. (2016). Bullied: Tales of torment, identity, and youth . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Book, A. S., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 52 (2), 218–223.

Chan, N. N., Ahrumugam, P., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., & Ooi, P. B. (2020). A hermeneutic phenomenological study of students’ and school counsellors’ “lived experiences” of cyberbullying and bullying. Computers & Education , 146 , 103755.

Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 16 (1), 255–262.

Google Scholar  

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Lereya, S. T., Shanahan, L., Worthman, C., & Costello, E. J. (2014). Childhood bullying involvement predicts low-grade systemic inflammation into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (21), 7570–7575.

Cross, D., Lester, L., Barnes, A., Cardoso, P., & Hadwen, K. (2015). If It’s about me, why do it without me? Genuine student engagement in school Cyberbullying education. International Journal of Emotional Education, 7 (1), 35–51.

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (10), 1889–1910.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cypress, B. S. (2015). Qualitative Research: The “What”,“Why”,“Who”, and “How”! Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 34 (6), 356–361.

Da Silva, J. L., De Oliveira, W. A., Braga, I. F., Farias, M. S., da Silva Lizzi, E. A., Gonçalves, M. F. C., & Silva, M. A. I. (2016). The effects of a skill-based intervention for victims of bullying in Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Hkealth, 13 (11), 1042.

Dane, A. V., Marini, Z. A., Volk, A. A., & Vaillancourt, T. (2017). Physical and relational bullying and victimization: Differential relations with adolescent dating and sexual behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 43 (2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21667

DeLara, E. W. (2012). Why adolescents don’t disclose incidents of bullying and harassment. Journal of School Violence, 11 (4), 288–305.

Dennehy, R., Meaney, S., Walsh, K. A., Sinnott, C., Cronin, M., & Arensman, E. (2020). Young people's conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.  Aggression and Violent Behavior ,  51 , 101379.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2010). Goals, attention, and (un) consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 , 467–490.

Englander, E., Donnerstein, E., Kowalski, R., Lin, C. A., & Parti, K. (2017). Defining cyberbullying. Pediatrics, 140 (2), 148–151.

Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Green, J. G., Furlong, M. J., & Tanigawa, D. (2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: The development of the California Bullying Victimization Scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37 (3), 234–247.

Flanagan, R. (2007). Lucifer goes to law school: Towards explaining and minimizing law student peer-to-peer harassment and intimidation. Washburn Law Journal, 47 , 453.

Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in qualitative research. A Companion to Qualitative Research, 3 , 178–183.

Forsberg, C., & Thornberg, R. (2016). The social ordering of belonging: Children’s perspectives on bullying. International Journal of Educational Research, 78 , 13–23.

Forsberg, C., Thornberg, R., & Samuelsson, M. (2014). Bystanders to bullying: Fourth-to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Research Papers in Education, 29 (5), 557–576.

Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1 (1), 14–31.

Gamliel, T., Hoover, J. H., Daughtry, D. W., & Imbra, C. M. (2003). A qualitative investigation of bullying: The perspectives of fifth, sixth and seventh graders in a USA parochial school. School Psychology International, 24 (4), 405–420.

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin,C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82 (1), 295–310.

Gumpel, T. P., Zioni-Koren, V., & Bekerman, Z. (2014). An ethnographic study of participant roles in school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40 (3), 214–228.

Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., & Hartling, L. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169 (8), 770–777.

Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49 (3), 279–309.

Hawley, P. H. (2015). Social dominance in childhood and its evolutionary underpinnings: Why it matters and what we can do. Pediatrics, 135 (Supplement 2), S31–S38.

Hawley, P. H., Stump, K. N., Ratliff, J. (2011). Sidestepping the jingle fallacy. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American Schools (2 nd Ed.; pp. 101–116). Routledge.

Hellström, L., & Lundberg, A. (2020). Understanding bullying from young people’s perspectives: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 62 (4), 414–433.

Hellström, L., Persson, L., & Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying–adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73 (1), 1–9.

Hunt, E., & McKay, E. A. (2015). What can be learned from adolescent time diary research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56 (3), 259–266.

Jacobs, N. C. L., Goossens, L., Dehue, F., Vollink, T., & Lechner, L. (2015). Dutch cyberbullying victims’ experiences, perceptions, attitudes and motivations related to (coping with) cyberbullying: Focus group interviews. Societies, 5 (1), 43–64.

Jeffrey, J., & Stuart, J. (2019). Do research definitions of bullying capture the experiences and understandings of young people? A qualitative investigation into the characteristics of bullying behaviour. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2 , 180–189.

Jia, M., & Mikami, A. (2018). Issues in the assessment of bullying: Implications for conceptualizations and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41 , 108–118.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Kaufman, T. M., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2020). Refining victims’ self-reports on bullying: Assessing frequency, intensity, power imbalance, and goal-directedness. Social Development, 29 (2), 375–390.

Land, D. (2003). Teasing apart secondary students’ conceptualizations of peer teasing, bullying and sexual harassment. School Psychology International, 24 (2), 147–165.

Leung, L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 4 (3), 324.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Livingston, J. A., Derrick, J. L., Wang, W., Testa, M., Nickerson, A. B., Espelage, D. L., & Miller, K. E. (2019). Proximal associations among bullying, mood, and substance use: A daily report study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 (9), 2558–2571.

Luhrmann, T. M. (2006). Subjectivity. Anthropological Theory, 6 (3), 345–361.

Lyng, S. T. (2018). The social production of bullying: Expanding the repertoire of approaches to group dynamics. Children & Society, 32 (6), 492–502.

Mack, R., Giarelli, E., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2009). The adolescent research participant: strategies for productive and ethical interviewing. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 24 (6), 448-457.

Maestripieri, D. (2012). Games primates play: an undercover investigation of the evolution and economics of human relationships . Basic Books (AZ).

Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., Coyle, S., Geosling, R., Rueger, S. Y., & Becker, L. D. (2015). Frequency, power differential, and intentionality and the relationship to anxiety, depression, and self-esteem for victims of bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44 (1), 115–131.

Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & CURA, Y. (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 32 (6), 551–569.

Marsee, M. A., Barry, C. T., Childs, K. K., Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Munoz, L. C., et al. (2011). Assessing the forms and functions of aggression using self-report: Factor structure and invariance of the Peer Conflict Scale in Youths. Psychological Assessment, 23 , 792–804.

McCabe, R. E., Antony, M. M., Summerfeldt, L. J., Liss, A., & Swinson, R. P. (2003). Preliminary examination of the relationship between anxiety disorders in adults and self-reported history of teasing or bullying experiences. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 32 (4), 187–193.

Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children & Chools, 26 (4), 234–247.

Mishna, F., Wiener, J., & Pepler, D. (2008). Some of my best friends——experiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology International, 29 (5), 549–573.

Mishna, F., Saini, M., & Solomon, S. (2009). Ongoing and online: Children and youth’s perceptions of cyber bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 31 (12), 1222–1228.

Muñoz, F.-F., & Encinar, M.-I. (2014). Intentionality and the emergence of complexity: An analytical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24 (2), 317–334.

Moreno, M. A., Hyzer, R. H., Bushman, M. E., Gower, A. D., & Pletta, K. H. (2021). Adolescent and parent emotions and perceptions regarding news media stories about bullying: a qualitative study. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 3 (4), 270–277.

Nishina, A., & Bellmore, A. (2010). When might peer aggression, victimization, and conflict have its largest impact? Microcontextual considerations. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30 (1), 5–26.

Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76 (2), 435–450.

Oblath, R., Greif Green, J., Guzmán, J., Felix, E. D., Furlong, M. J., Holt, M., & Sharkey, J. (2020). Retrospective perceptions of power imbalance in childhood bullying among college students. Journal of American College Health, 68 (8), 891–899.

O’Higgins, N. J., & Hinduja, S. (2019). Inaugural editorial. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1 (1), 1–2.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. In Aggressive behavior (pp. 97–130). Springer, Boston, MA.

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9 , 751–780.

Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34 (5), 1189.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18 (1), 3–16.

Pelfrey, W. V., Jr., & Weber, N. (2014). Talking smack and the telephone game: Conceptualizing cyberbullying with middle and high school youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 17 (3), 397–414.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37 (3), 151–163.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20 (2), 259–280.

Pimm, D. (1987). Communication in mathematics classrooms. Routledge.

Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.

Pribram, K. H. (1960). A review of theory in physiological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 11 (1), 1–40.

Pronk, J., Lee, N. C., Sandhu, D., Kaur, K., Kaur, S., Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2017). Associations between Dutch and Indian adolescents’ bullying role behavior and peer-group status: Cross-culturally testing an evolutionary hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 (6), 735–742.

QMI Agency. (2013). More heartache for Myles Neuts’ family. London Free Press . https://lfpress.com/2013/03/24/more-heartache-for-myles-neuts-family . Accessed 27 Apr 2021.

Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies.

Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., & Lui, J. (2006). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32 , 159–172.

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Van De Schoot, R., Aleva, L., & Van Der Meulen, M. (2013). Costs and benefits of bullying in the context of the peer group: a three wave longitudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41 (8), 1217–1229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9759-3

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vink, G., Aleva, L., & van der Meulen, M. (2018). Differences between resource control types revisited: A short term longitudinal study. Social Development, 27 (1), 187–200.

Runions, K. C., Salmivalli, C., Shaw, T., Burns, S., & Cross, D. (2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44 (5), 501–511.

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15 (2), 112–120.

Salmivalli, C., & Peets, K. (2009). Bullies, victims, and bully-victim relationships in middle childhood and early adolescence. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 322–340). Guilford.

Sawyer, J. L., Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2011). The missing voice: Parents’ perspectives of bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (10), 1795–1803.

Schonfeld, I. S., & Mazzola, J. J. (2013). Strengths and limitations of qualitative approaches to research in occupational health psychology.

Sercombe, H., & Donnelly, B. (2013). Bullying and agency: Definition, intervention and ethics. Journal of Youth Studies, 16 (4), 491–502.

Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58 (7–8), 477–489.

Sofaer, S. (2002). Qualitative research methods. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 14 (4), 329–336.

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29 (3), 239–268.

Søndergaard, D. M. (2012). Bullying and social exclusion anxiety in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33 (3), 355–372.

Spadafora, N., Marini, Z. A., & Volk, A. A. (2020). Should I defend or should I go? An adaptive, qualitative examination of the personal costs and benefits associated with bullying intervention. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 35 (1), 23–40.

Spadafora, N., & Volk, A. A. (2021). Child and Youth Classroom Incivility Scale (CYCIS): Exploring uncivil behaviors in the classroom. School Mental Health, 13 (1), 186–200.

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2013). The evolution of intelligence . Psychology Press.

Strindberg, J., Horton, P., & Thornberg, R. (2020). Coolness and social vulnerability: Swedish pupils’ reflections on participant roles in school bullying. Research Papers in Education, 35 (5), 603–622.

Thomas, H. J., Connor, J. P., & Scott, J. G. (2015). Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: Challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents–a review. Educational Psychology Review, 27 (1), 135–152.

Thornberg, R., & Delby, H. (2019). How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational Research, 61 (2), 142–160.

Thornberg, R., Landgren, L., & Wiman, E. (2018). ‘It Depends’: A qualitative study on how adolescent students explain bystander intervention and non-intervention in bullying situations. School Psychology International, 39 (4), 400–415.

Thornberg, R. (2011). Informed Grounded Theory. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 56 (3), 243–259.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 (5), 405–418.

Turnbull, C. (1987). Mountain people . Simon and Schuster.

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2) , 157–176.

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32 (6), 486–495.

Van der Ploeg, R., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2020). The way bullying works: How new ties facilitate the mutual reinforcement of status and bullying in elementary schools. Social Networks, 60 , 71–82.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81 (2), 480–486.

Volk, A., Craig, W., Boyce, W., & King, M. (2006). Adolescent risk correlates of bullying and different types of victimization. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 18 (4), 375–386.

Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38 , 222–238.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A Theoretical Redefinition. Developmental Review, 34 (4), 327–343.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., Marini, Z. A., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Adolescent bullying, dating, and mating: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 13 (4), 1–11.

Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36 , 34–43.

Wolke, D., & Lereya, S. T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100 (9), 879–885.

Wójcik, M., & Mondry, M. (2020). “The game of bullying”: Shared beliefs and behavioral labels in bullying among middle schoolers. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24 (4), 276.

Wrong, D. (2017). Power: Its forms, bases and uses . Routledge.

Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 (2), 293–300.

Download references

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

Natalie Spadafora & Anthony A. Volk

Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada

Andrew V. Dane

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Spadafora .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Spadafora, N., Volk, A.A. & Dane, A.V. Using Qualitative Methods to Measure and Understand Key Features of Adolescent Bullying: A Call to Action. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 4 , 230–241 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00116-y

Download citation

Accepted : 03 February 2022

Published : 16 February 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00116-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative methods
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research