Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
Since the publication of Olweuss book Aggression in
the Schools, in 1978, there has been a growing interest
in the topic of school bullying. Spreading from Scandinavia to other western European countries, the
United States, and Australia and New Zealand, and
with a somewhat independent research tradition in
Japan on ijime, the research and preventive action on
this phenomenon has now reached an international
dimension (Smith, Morita, et al., 1999). Correspondingly, there is a need to examine the use of the word
bullying and cognate terms in a variety of languages,
at an international level, to understand fully the similarities and differences in the phenomenon across
different countries and language groups. In any culture, the issue of denition is central for accurate statistics on the incidence of bullying; the study of developmental changes in perceptions of bullying on the
part of children, adolescents and adults; the evaluation of the effectiveness of different interventions to
combat it; and clarication of individual rights and
legal responsibilities (Ananiadou & Smith, in press).
Because comparisons are attempted at cross-national
levels, the denition of corresponding terms in different languages becomes essential for the interpretation
of cross-national ndings. The present study exam-
1120
Child Development
Smith et al.
1121
1122
Child Development
METHOD
The Cartoons Task
We rst developed a series of 25 stick-gure cartoon pictures (see Table 1) that illustrated different situations that might or might not be bullying, based on
elements used in existing denitions of bullying
(Smith, 1999). Most of the cartoons portrayed negative acts; however, two prosocial cartoons (10, 18)
were included. Two other nonaggressive cartoons
were paired with corresponding aggressive ones: one
(8) showed a negative but accidental act and was contrasted with one (9) in which a similar act was intentional; the other (16) showed friendly verbal teasing
and was contrasted with one (17) that depicted similar teasing that upset the recipient. One cartoon (4) referred to provoked aggression. The remaining cartoons covered physical forms of aggression (17),
direct verbal aggression (1115), social exclusion aggression (1923), and indirect relational aggression
(24, 25); however, embedded in these were comparisons of the dening criteria of bullying, namely repetition and imbalance of power. Thus, repetition was
made explicit in some cartoons (5, 12, 20), and imbalance of power in others (3, 7, 21). Themes such as racism (13), sexism (22, 23), and discrimination on the
basis of disability (14) or sexual orientation (15) were
also included.
The cartoons were piloted extensively before the
set was nalized. Stick gures were used so as to
avoid issues of clothing, which might vary by culture,
and to avoid suggesting any particular ethnic group
or skin color. Thus, identical pictures were used
across all cultures. Each cartoon had a caption in the
native language, as listed in Table 1 for the English
language version (boys). In each language, one set of
cartoons had captions with typical boys names in the
country concerned, and a corresponding set had captions with typical girls names; cartoons 22 and 23
were in common to both gender sets. Examples of
four cartoons (3 and 10 from the boys set, 14 and 21
from the girls set) are shown in Figure 1.
The cartoon captions were descriptive (see Table 1)
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Mike and John dont like each other and start to fight
Bill starts a fight with Joey
Martin starts to fight with Akhtar, who is smaller
Sean starts a fight with Ron because he said Sean was stupid
Chris starts a fight with Damien every break time
David tells Scott that if he doesnt give him money, he will hit
him
Nick and his friends start to fight Terry
Nigel borrows Duncans ruler and accidentally breaks it
Harry takes Ians ruler and breaks it
Jim forgot his pen so Kirk lends him one of his
Kurt says nasty things to Ben
Charles says nasty things to Marcus every week
Stuart says nasty things to Jeff about the color of his skin
(alternate caption if color of skin is not an important factor
in the culture: Stuart says nasty things to Jeff about his
talking in a different way)
Joshua has a bad leg and must use a stick, Carl says nasty
things to him about it
George says nasty things to Derek about his sexual orientation
Ken makes fun of Grahams hair, they both laugh
Anthony makes fun about Stans hair, Stan is upset
Mick asks Richard if he would like to play
Matt wont let Lenny play today
Sebastian never lets Rob play
Henry and his friends wont let Ray play with them
The girls wont let Mark skip with them because hes a boy
The boys wont let Karen play football because shes a girl
Gerry tells everyone not to talk to Guy
Bill spreads nasty stories about Alan
and avoided use of any general terms such as bullying. The English captions constituted a reference set.
In each other country, a researcher translated these
captions into the main native language as used by
participants in the task. These captions were then
back-translated into English by another person, and
returned to the rst author in London, who then
checked them against the original versions and discussed any discrepancies until these were resolved.
All 25 cartoons were used identically in all 14
countries, with the exception of cartoons 13 and 15. If
color of skin was not an important factor in a culture,
an alternate caption about saying nasty things about a
child talking in a different way was used for cartoon
13. In addition, in some countries permission was not
readily forthcoming from schools to use cartoon 15,
which was on sexual orientation (usually with 8-yearolds, but occasionally with 14-year-olds as well); thus,
the cartoon was omitted from the main cross-national
analyses.
General Procedure
Researchers in all 14 countries followed an agreedon three-step procedure.
Smith et al.
Figure 1
1123
Examples of four of the cartoons: Numbers 3 and 10 from the boys set, and 14 and 21 from the girls set.
Step 1: List and select terms for bullying and social exclusion in the relevant language. Likely terms to use in
the investigation were taken from dictionaries and
thesauruses, questionnaires on bullying translated
into the language, and research and popular writings
on the topic. Some 5 to 10 terms were then chosen, on
the basis of meaning and applicability across the
country/culture, to proceed to Step 2.
Step 2: Use focus groups with children to check on usage
and broad understanding of terms. At least two focus
groups were held, each consisting of at least four (usually more) 8-year-olds and four (usually more) 14-yearolds. The ostensible aim for the participants was to
generate words that were currently used to describe
antisocial/aggressive behaviors and situations at
school. To engage participants in debate, a subset of
the cartoons was employed as stimulus materials. For
the purposes of the study, the aim was to ensure that
terms selected for Step 3 were spontaneously used by
some participants, and were broadly familiar to most
participants.
1124
Child Development
which these terms are used. The work was carried out
in school settings, with children withdrawn from
class on an individual basis (for all 8-year-olds; in
some countries the 14-year-old data were obtained on
a class basis). Of the terms selected for investigation,
each was taken in turn. Children were shown or given
the cartoons, with the researcher also reading the caption in the case of 8-year-olds. Gender-appropriate
cartoon sets were used. For each term, children were
required to either include or exclude each cartoon in
their denition of the term with which they were presented. This was done by sorting them in a pile under
the heading: this is X or this is not X (where X was
the term being currently considered); or, in class presentation with older children, by checking a standard
score sheet appropriately. The procedure was repeated
until all terms were investigated. The captions were
given in the order shown in Table 1. This was done to
maximize consistency across cultures, and to give a
narrative line to the task, as children moved through
physical, verbal, and more indirect/relational scenarios. The possible drawback of order effects was recognized, but pilot work suggested that a random order
was more confusing for the children to follow.
Participants
The sorting task in Step 3 was given to a minimum
of 20 boys and 20 girls each at 8 years and 14 years of
age (total N 1,245; n 604 at 8 years, n 641 at 14
years). They were selected from schools that were
deemed reasonably representative of the education
system in that country; that is, they were not drawn
from extreme groups in terms of academic ability, or
socioeconomic status. In all cases there were nearly
equal numbers of boys and girls at each age group
(exactly equal unless stated). Sample sizes are shown
in Table 2, together with the district of the country
from which they were recruited via local schools.
Table 2 also shows the number of terms used for both
8-year-olds and 14-year-olds (only one term was
available from the French team; due to a misunderstanding of instructions they chose the one term most
similar to bullying, from those terms used in the focus
groups with French pupils).
RESULTS
SPSS 10.0 for Windows was used for statistical purposes.
Structure of Responses to the Cartoons
The percentage of participants who included each
of the 24 cartoons (cartoon 15 was excluded, see
Smith et al.
1125
Table 2 Details of the Samples, and Number of Terms Used, in each of 14 Countries
Country
Language
Number of
Pupils at 8
Years
Austria
China
South Germanic
Mandarin Chinese
40
50
40
50
3
2
4
7
40
40
51 (26 boys,
25 girls)
40
40
40
70 (37 boys,
33 girls)
40
3
1
3
6
1
4
2
5
7
3
3
6
7
5
40
40
60
50
6
2
5
3
6
6
5
3
England English
France
French
Germany German
Greece
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Greek
Icelandic
Italian
Japanese
Norway
Norwegian
40
40
43 (22 boys,
21 girls)
40
40
40
51 (25 boys,
26 girls)
40
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Thailand
Portuguese
Slovenian
Spanish
Thai
40
40
60
40
Number of
Pupils at 14
Years
Number of
Terms at 8
Years
Number of
Terms at 14
Years
District of Sample
1126
Child Development
For both genders, there were clusters of nonaggressive (8, 10, 16, 18), social exclusion (19, 20, 21, 22, 23),
and physical aggression (1, 4); both genders also had
clusters of verbal:directindirect (11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24,
25), and physical bullying (2, 3, 5, 6, 7), with the only
difference being that cartoon 9 (nonaccidentally
breaking a ruler) was included in the physical bullying cluster for boys, but in the verbal:directindirect
cluster for girls.
Gender Differences
An analysis of the structure of the cartoons, in both
MDS (corresponding to Figures 2 and 3) and hierarchical cluster analysis solutions, was carried out separately for boys and girls. For this purpose, data
from 8- and 14-year-olds were combined, and the analyses were run on 45 terms used by both age groups,
from 13 countries (Norway was not included because
labeling by gender had been omitted in data collection). The Kruskal stress values for one-, two-,
three- and four-dimensional solutions, respectively,
were .12, .07, .03, and .01 for males; and .09, .05, .03,
and .02 for females. These low values indicated that
two-dimensional solutions were adequate for both
genders.
The MDS solutions for both genders are shown in
Figures 4 and 5. The overall structures were very similar; and, as described for Figures 2 and 3, the horizontal axis discriminated prosocial from aggressive
cartoons, and the vertical axis opposed physical
(bottom of gures) and verbal (middle of gures)
aggression from social exclusion (top of gures).
To establish the extent of similarity more objectively, two hierarchical cluster analyses were conducted, one for each gender, on the same data used in
the MDS solutions above. The specications followed
were identical to those used for the earlier age comparisons. At the level of getting a ve-cluster solution
as discussed above, congurations were very similar.
Smith et al.
The above clusters were used to simplify the meaning proles of the 67 terms. A mean percentage score
was computed for each term on each cluster. The
meaning of each term could thus be expressed in 5
percentage scores, instead of 25. The outcome is presented in Table 3. The range of scores for each cluster
was 0 to 100. For example (taking the fourth line in
Table 3), the term angreifen was only applied in 3% of
responses to the nonaggressive cartoons (i.e., averaged over these four cartoons individually), and only
7% of the social exclusion and 11% of the verbal bullying cartoons, but it was applied to 74% of the physical aggression cartoons, and 83% of the physical bullying cartoons; this indicates that the term angreifen
is used for physical aggression and bullying but
not for nonphysical forms. As expected, none of the
terms scored highly on the nonaggressive cluster;
however, there was considerable variation in weighting on the other four clusters, which showed differences in meaningsometimes obvious, sometimes
more subtle.
Conceptual Structure of Terms Used
in Different Languages
For each term, the percentage of participants who
included each of the 24 cartoons as part of their definition of that term was computed. The meaning of
each term was operationalized with regard to the
mean percentage for the cartoons in each of the ve
clusters. The similarity or difference in meaning between any two terms could be assessed by comparing
their percentage proles across the ve clusters. This
permitted a comparison of the meaning of the terms
across languages and cultures.
To examine similarities and differences in their
meanings, MDS was rst conducted on all 67 terms
for the 14-year-olds. The specications for the analysis were identical to those applied in the earlier MDS
analyses, except that in this case, a distance matrix
was computed between terms instead of between cartoons as was done in the earlier analyses. Stress
values for one- to four-dimensional solutions were,
respectively, .34, .18, .09, and .06. This suggests that a
three-dimensional solution was needed. Examining
this, the rst dimension opposed the aggressive and
the nonaggressive terms, the second dimension opposed the physical and social exclusion terms, and
the third dimension differentiated the verbal and
social exclusion terms. Because a three-dimensional
solution is difcult to visualize or portray, a hierachical cluster analysis was conducted to aid the identication of subgroups of terms. The specications for
the analysis were identical to those used before, with
1127
1128
Child Development
Table 3 Mean Percentage of 14-Year-Olds Who Included the Cartoons in Each Cluster as Part of Their Denition of that Term
Nonaggressive
Physical Aggression
Physical Bullying
Verbal:Direct
Indirect
Social Exclusion
16
21
23
3
40
56
65
74
51
60
78
83
73
85
94
11
34
58
90
7
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
28
13
25
22
23
17
24
57
94
82
79
67
85
39
71
85
72
80
89
55
84
51
68
52
53
58
60
45
4
10
15
7
14
8
34
42
43
42
59
39
94
88
35
78
76
95
91
84
83
82
84
96
62
49
51
46
64
67
France
F1: violence
56
83
60
26
Germany
GE1: rgern
GE2: angreifen
GE3: gemein sein
GE4: schikanieren
7
2
4
6
85
89
28
20
61
91
85
58
65
72
93
80
46
30
85
55
Greece
G1: kano to magha
G2: miono
G3: taleporo
8
10
13
40
70
76
84
74
92
70
85
85
65
78
75
Iceland
IS1: radast a
IS2: hrekkja
IS3: skilja ut undan
IS4: strida
IS5: taka fyrir
IS6: einelti
3
9
1
13
4
4
71
40
4
41
31
11
95
75
12
52
81
86
42
88
27
90
73
81
25
60
97
64
65
75
10
12
10
10
12
11
15
91
68
71
93
48
75
85
96
80
92
96
82
96
94
68
74
86
63
84
91
93
63
72
90
59
75
86
89
4
8
8
27
4
9
27
30
26
8
50
56
56
38
29
87
94
97
56
55
39
56
43
19
65
18
6
11
9
29
17
35
88
28
46
81
45
67
70
77
22
36
39
58
18
Austria
A1: sekkieren
A2: rgern
A3: gemein sein
A4: angreifen
China (romanized terms)
C1: lingru
C2: qifu
C3: qiling
C4: qiru
C5: qiwu
C6: qiya
C7: wuru
England
E1: bullying
E2: harassment
E3: teasing
E4: intimidation
E5: tormenting
E6: picking on
Italy
IT1: aggressivit
IT2: fare il duro
IT3: prepotenza
IT4: violenza
IT5: approffitarse
IT6: cattiveria
IT7: scorretto
Japan
J1: ijime
J2: ijiwaru
J3: iyagarase
J4: fuzake
J5: nakamahazushi
Norway
N1: erting
N2: mobbing
N3: plaging
N4: krangling
(Continued)
Smith et al.
1129
Table 3 Mean
Continued
Percentage of 14-Year-Olds Who Included the Cartoons in Each Cluster as Part of Their Denition of that Term
Nonaggressive
Physical Aggression
Physical Bullying
Verbal:Direct
Indirect
Social Exclusion
3
1
4
3
1
1
10
18
35
60
8
18
71
72
17
69
38
74
55
56
58
78
54
24
30
75
20
44
81
16
Slovenia
SL1: nadlegovanje
SL2: nasilnistvo
SL3: trpincenje
SL4: ustrahovanje
SL5: zavracanje
SL6: zlorabljanje
13
6
7
4
7
4
51
88
58
45
43
40
89
96
93
79
54
84
67
48
75
49
66
59
42
33
65
31
92
49
Spain
S1: maltrato
S2: meterse con
S3: rechazo
S4: abuso
S5: egoismo
8
15
6
5
6
49
66
28
21
21
96
63
42
86
54
85
86
81
75
66
65
40
96
58
94
Thailand
T1: nisai mai dee
T2: klang
T3: tum raai
15
19
10
77
32
38
79
64
76
81
86
61
69
67
48
Portugal
P1: abuso
P2: armar-se
P3: insulto
P4: provoo
P5: rejeio
P6: violncia
Note: The ve clusters consist of the following cartoons: nonaggressive (8, 10, 16, 18), physical aggression (1, 4), physical bullying (2, 3, 5,
6, 7), verbal:directindirect (9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24, 25), and social exclusion (19, 20, 21, 22, 23).
DISCUSSION
The cartoon methodology used in the present study
generally proved successful; children appeared to enjoy the task and it held their attention. This was facilitated by the narrative line used in the sequence, because often one feature was changed at a time. The
danger of this technique is the possibility of order effects; however, these were not apparent in the results.
For example, the social exclusion cartoons near the
end (1923) were clearly treated differently than other
items, including the last two (24, 25). The two prosocial cartoons (10, 18), although separated by seven
other cartoons, were scored almost identically (Figures 2 and 3).
As predicted, the results indicated that 8-year-olds
had a less differentiated understanding of terms than
did the 14-year-olds. Overall, the lack of differentiation between the cartoons for the 8-year-olds (two
clusters versus ve for the 14-year-olds) suggests a
relatively limited ability in this younger age group to
differentiate the situations presented in the cartoons,
by means of the terms presented to them. The age
comparison was based on the same 47 terms. However, the 14-year-olds had a wider choice of terms in
1130
Child Development
Figure 6
Smith et al.
1131
1132
Child Development
meaning in a social and historical context. Historically, meanings of words change. Even the core concept of the term bully has changed dramatically over
several centuries. More subtle changes have taken
place in the past 5 years, with the incorporation of
more indirect and relational forms of bullying into
current denitions. In addition, the term bullying is
now commonly used in the workplace and is not
solely conned to the school context.
The current study therefore represents an historical snapshot of the meaning of terms cognate to bullying, at the turn of the second millenium. This snapshot is moreover limited by the particular samples of
terms used, and of choice of respondents, in the 14
countries selected. However, the ndings should assist in the design and interpretation of comparative
cross-national studies of bullying at the present time
and for some years to come. In addition, the ndings
concerning the greater discrimination of criteria at 14
years than 8 years, and the lack of gender differences
in understanding and use of terms despite the gender
differences in behavior, may be of considerable generalizability over time and in different countries.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Hidefumi Arimoto, Julius K. Bjornsson, Cheryl Blackadder, Pamela Burton, Isabel Fernandez, Rosa Fera, Hector Gutierrez, Stefan Korn, Jessica
Mahdavi, Ersilia Menesini, Vicky Panagiotidou, Vicky
Pavlidis, Colin Pritchard, Rosario del Rey, Ebba Staven,
Mitsuru Taki, and Thanes Wongyannava for help in
data collection. This study was supported by contract
ERBFMRX-CT-970139 from the European Commission
on The Causes and Nature of Bullying and Social Exclusion in Schools, and Ways of Preventing Them
(http://www.gold.ac.uk/tmr).
ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS
Corresponding author: Peter K. Smith, Department of
Psychology, Goldsmiths College, New Cross, London
SE14 6NW, U.K.; e-mail: p.smith@gold.ac.uk. Helen
Cowie is at the University of Surrey Roehampton,
London, U.K.; Ragnar F. Olafsson is at the Institute for
Educational Research, Reykjavik, Iceland; and Andy
P. D. Liefooghe is at Birkbeck College, London, U.K.
Collaborating authors and their afliations are: Ana
Almeida, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal;
Hozumi Araki, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan; Cristina del Barrio, Universidad Autonoma de
Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Angela Costabile, Universit
della Calabria, Cosenza, Italy; Bojan Dekleva, University of Ljubljana, Llubljana, Slovenia; Anastasia
Houndoumadi, Deree College, Athens, Greece; Kenneth Kim, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.;
Ragnar P. Olafsson, Institute for Educational Research,
Reykjavik, Iceland; Rosario Ortega, Universidad de
Sevilla, Seville, Spain; Jacques Pain, Universite Paris
X Nanterre, Paris, France; Lena Pateraki, Deree College, Athens, Greece; Mechthild Schafer, Universitt
Mnchen, Munich, Germany; Monika Singer, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, U.K.;
Andrea Smorti, Universit di Firenze, Florence, Italy;
Yuichi Toda, Osaka University of Education, Osaka,
Japan; Helgi Tomasson, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland; Zhang Wenxin, Shandong Teachers
University, Jinan, Peoples Republic of China.
REFERENCES
Ananiadou, K., & Smith, P. K. (in press). Legal requirements
and nationally circulated materials against school bullying in European countries. Criminal Justice.
Arora, T. (1994). Measuring bullying with the Life in
School checklist. Pastoral Care in Education, 12, 1115.
Arora, T. (1996). Dening bullying. School Psychology International, 17, 317329.
Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. (Eds.). (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Press Syndicate of University of Cambridge.
Bjrkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992).
Do girls manipulate and boys ght? Aggressive Behavior,
18, 117127.
Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers views on bullying denitions, attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 223233.
Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and
overt aggression in preschool. Child Development, 33,
579588.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression,
gender, and socialpsychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722.
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Childrens treatment
by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367380.
Encarta World English dictionary. (1999). London: Bloomsbury.
Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice:
An annual review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 381458). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fonzi, A. (Ed.). (1997). Il bullismo in Italia. Firenze, Italy:
Giunti.
Fonzi, A., Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Bacchini, D., Bonino,
S., & Costabile, A. (1999). Italy. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita,
J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.),
The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective
(pp. 140156). New York: Routledge.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental
investigation of social aggression among children. Developmental Psychology, 33, 589600.
Smith et al.
Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., Costabile, A., & Smith,
P. K. (1996). Bullies and victims in schools in central and
southern Italy. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
11, 97110.
Hazler, R. (1996). Breaking the cycle of violence: Interventions
for bullies and victims. Bristol, PA: Accelerated Development, Inc.
Heinemann, P. P. (1973). Mobbning: Gruppvald blant barn og
vokane (Bullying: Group violence among children and
adults). Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Hughes, T. (1989). Tom Browns schooldays. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. (Original work published 1857)
Junger-Tas, J., & van Kesteren, J. N. (1999). Bullying and delinquency in a Dutch school population. Leiden, The Netherlands: Kugler.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964a). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of t to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 127.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964b). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling:
A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115129.
Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjrkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is
indirect aggression more typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year-old children.
Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403414.
Madsen, K. C. (1997). Differing perceptions of bullying. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Shefeld,
U.K.
Morita, Y. (1996). Bullying as a contemporary behaviour
problem in the context of increasing societal privatization in Japan. Prospects, 26, 311329.
Morita, Y. (1999). Ijime [bullying]: A cross-national investigation [Final report to Monbusho]. Tokyo: Ministry of
Education.
Morita, Y., Smith, P. K., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., & Catalano,
R. (Eds.). (1999). Sekai no ijime [Bullying across the
world]. Tokyo: Kaneko Shobou.
Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., & Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In
P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A crossnational perspective (pp. 309323). New York: Routledge.
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 239249.
OConnell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437452.
1133
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press (Wiley).
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what
we can do. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J.
Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The
nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7
27). New York: Routledge.
Pikas, A. (1989). A pure conception of mobbing gives the best
results for treatment. School Psychology International, 10,
95104.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian
school children: Reported behaviour and attitudes towards victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615627.
Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior
and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359368.
Smith, P. K. (1999). Comparison of bullying denitions
within and across cultures. In S. Sharp (Ed.), Bullying behaviour in schools (pp. 3738). London: NFER-Nelson.
Smith, P. K., & Levan, S. (1995). Perceptions and experiences
of bullying in younger pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 489500.
Smith, P. K., Madsen, K., & Moody, J. (1999). What causes
the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied.
Educational Research, 41, 267285.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano,
R., & Slee, P. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of school bullying: A
cross-national perspective. New York: Routledge.
Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.
Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about
bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a
decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193212.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and
extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary
schools. Educational Research, 35, 325.
Younger, A. J., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. (1985).
Age-related changes in childrens perceptions of aggression and withdrawal in their peers. Developmental Psychology, 21, 7075.
Younger, A. J., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. (1986).
Age-related changes in childrens perceptions of social
deviance: Changes in behavior or in perspective? Developmental Psychology, 22, 531542.