Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying:

Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention
Izabela Zych a,, Rosario Ortega-Ruiz a,1, Rosario Del Rey b,2
a
Universidad de Crdoba , 14004 Crdoba, Spain
b
Universidad de Sevilla , 41004 Sevilla, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bullying and cyberbullying are present all over the world and have serious consequences for individuals and so-
Received 15 September 2015 cieties. The number of research studies on the topic has increased exponentially throughout the history, but
Received in revised form 30 September 2015 many questions related to the phenomena remain unanswered. The current study is a systematic review of
Accepted 1 October 2015
systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic. Systematic searches were conducted in 7 databases and
Available online 21 October 2015
Aggressive and Violent Behavior journal. A total number of 66 studies met the inclusion criteria. The main ndings
Keywords:
are that one of every three children is involved in some forms of bullying and one of every ve in some forms of
Bullying cyberbullying. Boys are more involved than girls but with small or trivial effect sizes, and relationship with age is
Cyberbullying also weak. There is strong overlap between bullying and cyberbullying and bullying is an important problem
Meta-analyses among minorities. Results show risk and protective factors for bullying and cyberbullying, together with short-
Systematic reviews and long-term devastating consequences. Anti-bullying interventions are usually effective in reducing bullying,
although the effect sizes are small and depend on the components of the programs. Bullying and cyberbullying
evaluation strategies need to be improved. Findings are discussed introducing also the Special Issue on Bullying,
Cyberbullying and Youth Violence: Facts, Prevention and Intervention.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Aims of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Search strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. Inclusion criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Coding strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Prevalence, sex, and age of the children involved in the phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Relationship between bullying and cyberbullying: Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Minorities' involvement in bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Risk and protective factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.1. Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5. Consequences of bullying and cyberbullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.1. Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Corresponding author at: Departamento de Psicologa, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacin, Universidad de Crdoba. Avda. San Alberto Magno s/n, 14004 Crdoba Spain.
E-mail addresses: izych@uco.es (I. Zych), ed1orrur@uco.es (R. Ortega-Ruiz), delrey@us.es (R. Del Rey).
1
Departamento de Psicologa, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacin, Universidad de Crdoba. Avda. San Alberto Magno s/n, 14,004 Crdoba (Spain).
2
Departamento de Psicologa Evolutiva y de la Educacin, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacin, C/Pirotecnia s/n, 41,013. Sevilla (Spain).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001
1359-1789/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121

3.6. Effectiveness of anti-bullying programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.6.1. Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.6.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7. Effectiveness of different program components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7.1. Meta-analytic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.7.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.8. Evaluation strategies and methodologies: Non-meta-analytic systematic reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Conclusions and introduction to the Special Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1. Introduction
School bullying is a repeated violence intentionally perpetrated by
some students on other physically or psychologically weaker peers
(Smith & Brain, 2000) under a so-called dominancesubmission scheme
and law of silence (Ortega, 2010). This kind of abuse is present in
schools all over the world (Craig et al., 2009). Consequences of being in-
volved in bullying as victims, perpetrators, or both are very serious and
affect individuals and societies (Farrington, Losel, Tto, & Theodorakis,
2012). Interventions are being conducted all over the world (Tto &
Farrington, 2011), but the problem still persists and is now present
not only in schools but also in cyberspace being called cyberbullying
(e.g. Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner, 2014). The latter has
been dened as usually repeated aggressive and hostile messages inten-
tionally sent though electronic media (Tokunaga, 2010).
Rapid development of information and communication technol-
ogies, together with other factors, has led to an exponential increase
in the number of studies available to the scientic community
(Bornmann & Mutz, in press). Bibliographical sources needed for
the constructions of theoretical frameworks and design of new re-
search can be easily accessed anytime and anywhere in the world.
Sophisticated software makes possible introduction of thousands
of data points in few hours and skilled researchers are able to per-
form complex analyses in less than a week. Pressure on publishing
in most of the research institutions is high (Teelken & Lomas, 2009)
and updated reports of new ndings on different topics are released
every day. Research on bullying and cyberbullying is no exception as
can be seen on the example of a Web of Science search with 44 results
in 1995, 165 results in 2005, or 689 results in 2014 with a total number
of about 11,000 articles. Even though thousands of studies on bullying
and cyberbullying have been published throughout the history of the
eld, this kind of violence still persists. Moreover, there are still impor-
tant gaps in knowledge on the phenomena.
Although bullying is present all over the world, there are big differ-
ences in its prevalence ranging from 8.6% to 45.2% in boys, and from
4.8% to 35.8% in girls, with higher perpetration rates among boys and
more victimization among girls in 70% of the countries and showing de-
crease with age in about two thirds of the countries (Craig et al., 2009).
For cyberbullying, rates as high as 72% (Juvoven & Gross, 2008) and as
low as 6.5% (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) have been reported. Moreover,
it is unclear whether cyberbullying is just a form of bullying (Olweus,
2013) or should be considered a new and different phenomenon con-
sidering its specic features (Slonje, Smith, & Frisen, 2013). Involvement
of minorities is also unclear, with some studies reporting more involved
in bullying than the majority groups (e.g. Fandrem, Strohmeier, &
Roland, 2009; Rodrguez-Hidalgo, Ortega-Ruiz, & Zych, 2014) and
others nding no difference between the two (e.g. Seals & Young,
2003). Risk and protective factors, together with outcomes, are broadly
studied (e.g. Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010; Hawker &
Boulton, 2000; Kowalski et al., 2014), but it still needs to be conrmed
which have the biggest impact on students involved in bullying and
cyberbullying. Finally, anti-bullying programs are being implemented
all over the world (Farrington & Tto, 2009), but not all of them are
effective and some components seem to produce better results than
others. Evaluation strategies and methodologies in the eld also vary
(Vivolo-Kantor, Martell, Holland, & Westby, 2014). Clarifying all these
issues would be useful for further advancement of studies on bullying
and cyberbullying.
A valuable solution to this situation can be found in synthesizing em-
pirical knowledge through literature reviews (Cooper, 2009). Although
classical literature narrative reviews provide valuable knowledge of dif-
ferent topics, systematic reviews and meta-analyses give more objective
and, therefore, less biased information (Johnson & Eagly, 2000). These
kinds of studies are very useful in gathering the information on inter-
vention programs and also on naturally occurring predictors and out-
comes of different phenomena (Murray, Farrington, & Eisner, 2009).
To our knowledge, ndings of these theoretical studies in the eld
have not yet been systematically reviewed although Tto, Eisner, and
Bradshaw (2014) described and analyzed systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of anti-bullying programs and Jimnez Barbero, Ruiz
Hernndez, Llor Esteban, and Prez Garca (2012) analyzed ve meta-
analyses on school bullying and violence prevention. Farrington, Losel
and Tto (in press) conducted a systematic review on community-
based programs to prevent antisocial behavior. This article, on the
other hand, reports a systematic review of systematic reviews and
meta-analyses on bullying and cyberbullying. It has been conducted to
ll the gaps in knowledge on the topic providing a global panorama
based on research syntheses.
2. Method
2.1. Aims of the study
The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review of system-
atic reviews and meta-analyses of research about bullying and
cyberbullying. Specically, this study pursued
- to review the topics and the main ndings of the review studies
about bullying and cyberbullying;
- to synthetize knowledge derived from theoretical studies about bul-
lying and cyberbullying taking into account prevalence, age, and sex
differences, possible overlap between the two phenomena, involve-
ment of minorities, risk, and protective factors, consequences, effec-
tiveness of anti-bullying programs and evaluation strategies;
- to synthetize and analyze effect sizes of the reviewed meta-analyses.
2.2. Search strategies
Search was conducted between June and August 2015 in the follow-
ing databases: Google Scholar, Sciencedirect, Web of Science, Medline
(through Web of Knowledge), PsychInfo, Campbell Library, Cochrane Li-
brary, and Wiley Online Library. Aggression and Violent Behavior was
also searched given the high number of review articles on the topic pub-
lished in the journal. Also, the references of the articles included in the
current study were searched for possible additional documents.
Keywords and search strategies depended on the search engines of
each database and were chosen with the objective of locating maximum
numbers of studies. Thus, searches needed to be wide enough to locate
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
all the potentially includable papers and, at the same time, restrictive
enough to locate only relevant documents. For that reason, searches
were restricted to titles in databases where all-eld searches would pro-
duce hundreds of thousands of records (i.e. Google Scholar). In engines
where searches in titles could be combined with all elds or topics (i.e.
Sciencedirect, Web of Knowledge, Wiley Online Library) keywords were
entered assuming that bullying or cyberbullying would appear in titles
and the type of the study (systematic review or meta-analysis) in
other parts of the document or vice versa. On the other hand, in search
engines that produce numbers of relevant records possible to scan and
analyze (i.e. PsychInfo), less restricted searches were conducted in
some cases including even all the articles on bullying and cyberbullying
(i.e. Aggression and Violent Behavior, Campbell and Cochrane libraries).
No time restrictions were introduced and, whenever possible, searches
were restricted to journal articles.
In Google Scholar, keywords such as bullying, bully,
cyberbullying combined with review, meta-analysis, and meta-
analytic were searched in titles (allintitle: function) yielding a total
number of 452 results. Bullying/cyberbullying and review/
meta-analysis/meta-analytic were introduced interchangeably in
titles and in all elds (e.g. bullying" in title and meta-analysis in all
elds and then meta-analysis in title and bullying in all elds), in
Sciencedirect (341 records), Web of Knowledge including all the
databases (158 records) and Wiley Online Library (255 records). In
PsychInfo, bullying and cyberbullying were combined with sys-
tematic review/meta-analysis/meta-analytic in journal articlesall
elds with a total number of 109 records. Bullying and cyberbullying
were introduced in all elds in Aggression and Violent Behavior (172 re-
cords), Campbell library (23 records), and Cochrane library (35 records).
Thus, a total number of 1545 records were scanned (including repeti-
tions). In all the cases, titles were scanned and if potentially includable,
abstracts and full texts were analyzed. Among all these studies, 66 studies
met the inclusion criteria.
2.3. Inclusion criteria
- Articles which review empirical research focusing specically on
peer victimization, bullying or cyberbullying were included, exclud-
ing studies that would focus on school violence (unspecic) and re-
views on bullying or cyberbullying mixed with other phenomena
(e.g. Jimnez Barbero et al., 2012, or Mishna, Cook, Saini, Wu, &
MacFadden, 2009, who reviewed studies on cyber-abuse in gen-
eral including only one research on cyberbullying).
- Only systematic reviews were included dened as reviews with
systematic or semi-systematic search in databases and possible
other sources (e.g. references) performed with keywords includ-
ing bullying or cyberbullying together with explicit inclusion and
exclusion criteria. The studies might or might not include effect
size calculations (meta-analyses) and searches were always con-
ducted with the purpose of locating all the relevant studies on the
topic within established time periods. Articles were excluded
when there was no description of inclusion/exclusion criteria
(e.g. Liu & Graves, 2011), or the description indicated clearly un-
specic criteria (e.g. the inclusion criterion is the presence of the
keywords in titles or abstractsSalgado, Senra, & Loureno, 2014)
or search strategies.
- Bullying and cyberbullying were perpetrated by children, adoles-
cents, or youth in school settings, excluding studies on bullying, for
example, at work. Reviews that included workplace and school bul-
lying in the same analyses were also excluded (e.g. Nielsen, Tangenc,
Idsoe, Matthiesen, & Magery, 2015).
- Articles were written in English or Spanish.
- In order to guarantee the quality, only peer-reviewed documents
such as journal articles and Campbell and Cochrane reports were
included, excluding meeting abstracts, proceeding (except those
published in Procedia since it is peer-reviewed) master's degree or
3
doctoral degree dissertations, other technical reports, and similar
documents. The authors of the current review are aware of the
fact that some very high-quality reports have been excluded (e.g.
Farrington et al., 2012; Tto, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008), but most
of the ndings were also published in peer-reviewed journals and,
therefore, included in the current review.
2.4. Coding strategies
Included studies were analyzed and coded reporting databases
where searches were conducted, numbers of articles included in each
review, the main topics and the main ndings. For meta-analyses, over-
all effect sizes for the most important variables were included. Finally,
results were described synthesizing the ndings of all the included arti-
cles grouping the common topics.
The Results section shows overall effect sizes reported in each meta-
analysis together with its interpretation based on Cohen (1988), Cooper
(2009), and Lipsey and Wilson (2001) recommendations. Effect sizes
were considered small for r = .10.24, OR = 1.502.49, d or g =
.20.49; medium for r = .25.39, OR = 2.504.49 d or g = .50.79
and large r N .40 or OR N 4.30, d or g = N .80. These metrics are provided
as in the original studies with condence intervals if available. Modera-
tion effects were described for each study, but metrics were not provid-
ed due to the space limitations.
First, results from meta-analyses are presented giving the strongest
evidence of their results. Then, in each section, complementary informa-
tion is added from systematic reviews which did not include a meta-
analysis. Overall metrics, frequencies, or description are provided
when available.
3. Results
A total number of 66 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were
included in the current study. Results are presented rst taking into
account meta-analytic research and then adding information from
non-meta-analytic systematic reviews.
Table 1 shows the meta-analyses and Table 2 shows non-meta-
analytic systematic reviews included in the current study. Tables focus
on the sources from which the primary studies were extracted in each
systematic review and meta-analysis, the number of research papers in-
cluded in each study, the main topics together with the main ndings
and conclusions. Synthesis of the most important ndings is included
below taking into account the main topics of each theoretical study.
3.1. Prevalence, sex, and age of the children involved in the phenomena
3.1.1. Meta-analytic results
Prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying was reported by Modecki
et al. (2014) taking into account results from 80 studies. For bullying,
mean prevalence rates for perpetration were of 35% (95% CI: .34.35)
and for victimization of 36% (95% CI: .36.36). For cyberbullying, mean
perpetration rate was of 16% (95% CI: .15.16) and mean victimization
rate was of 15% (95% CI: .15.15). Higher rates were found when a
clear denition was provided and terms fun or tease were included.
Lower rates were found when behavioral examples (except for tradi-
tional perpetration when behavioral examples were related to higher
rates) or the term bully were included in the measure and in studies
with imposed randomization.
A meta-analysis of 109 studies conducted by Barlett and Coyne
(2014) shows that cyberbullying perpetration was more common in
boys than in girls, but the overall effect size was trivial (r = .04, 95%
CI: .03.04). The authors report signicant moderating effect of age
showing that more girls were involved in cyberbullying perpetration
in younger samples and more boys were involved in older samples, al-
though no cut-off point could be calculated due to the continuous
4 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Table 1
Meta-analyses on bullying and cyberbullying.
Study Databases and other sources
Barlett and Coyne PsycInfo, PubMed, ERIC, and Google Scholar
(2014) and references of a recent meta-analysis.
Cook et al. (2010) PsychInfo, ERIC, and Medline, references and
previous review articles.
Cunningham, Hoy, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and PubMed
and Shannon
(2015)
Farrington & Tto, Australian Criminology Database (CINCH),
2009;Tto and Australian Education Index, British Educa-
Farrington (2011)1 tion Index, Cochrane Controlled Trials
Register, C2-SPECTR, Criminal Justice
Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews
of Effectiveness (DARE), Dissertation
Abstracts, Educational Resources Informa-
tion Clearinghouse (ERIC), EMBASE, Google
Scholar, Index to Theses Database, MEDLINE,
National Criminal Justice, Reference Service
(NCJRS), PsychInfo/Psychlit, Sociological
Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index
(SSCI), Web of Knowledge; names of the
recognized researchers, 35 journals and
meetings with colleagues
Fedewa and Ahn PsychLit, PsycINFO, Dissertation Abstracts,
(2011) MEDLINE, ERIC, Google Scholar, and
literature reviews.
Ferguson, Miguel, PsycINFO and the references of the selected
Kilburn, and articles
Sanchez (2007)
Gini and Pozzoli PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the
(2009)2 Campbell Collaboration, and Scopus together
with cited by function in Scopus, review
articles and references
Gini, Pozzoli, and PsychInfo, Educational Research Information
Hymel, (2014)3 Center, Scopus, Google Scholar, review
articles, references and direct contact with
N Main topics
109 Sex differences in cyberbullying
perpetration and possible
moderators that would inuence
the effect.
153 Individual and contextual
predictors of bullying
perpetration and victimization.
10 Bullying as a cause of psychotic
symptoms analyzing research
with prospective designs focusing
on the most severe and enduring
symptoms.
89 Effectiveness of programs to
reduce bullying including 53
evaluations (published in 89
reports) taking into account
research designs and other
characteristics of the evaluation
(sample size, publication dates,
participants age, location and
outcome measures), the most
important elements of the
programs.
18 Frequency and the effect of
victimization on sexual-minority
group compared to the majority
group paying attention to
psychological, physical, and social
outcomes.
45 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
programs considering also
moderator analyses.
30 Relationship between
victimization and psychosomatic
problems considering
cross-sectional and longitudinal
research.
15 Relationship between bullying
and cyberbullying perpetration
with moral disengagement.
Main ndings and conclusions
Boys perpetrated cyberbullying more than girls with
signicant but rather weak overall effect size (r = .04, 95%
CI: .034.042). Age moderated the effect sizemore girls
than boys were involved in cyberbullying in younger
samples and the opposite was true for older participants.
Countries and continents in which studies were conducted
also moderated effect sizes nding that boys cyberbullied
more in some countries or continents (e.g. the USA,
Germany, or Turkey) or no sex difference (e.g. in Canada
or Australia).
The most important individual predictors of involvement
in perpetration were externalizing behavior (e.g.
undercontrolled aggressive response) (r = .34, 95% CI:
.30.38) and other-related cognitions (e. g perspective
taking or normative beliefs about others) (r = .34, 95%
CI: .26 to .41); in victimization were social competence
(r = .30, 95% CI: .22 to .38) and internalizing
problems (e.g. withdrawn or depressive response)
(r = .25, 95% CI: .20.28) and in being a bully/victim
were self-related cognitions (e.g. self-respect or
self-esteem) (r = .40, 95% CI: .29 to .50) and
social competence (r = .36 95% CI: .28 to .45).
Among the contextual predictors, the most important
for perpetration were peer inuence (r = .34, 95%
CI: .26 to .42) and community factors (r = .22,
95%CI: .14 to .29); for victimization were peer
status (r = .35, 95% CI: .28 to .41) and school
climate (r = .16, 95% CI: .10 to .21) and for
bully/victims were peer status (r = .36, 95%
CI: .23 to .49) and peer inuence (r = .44, no CI
reported)
Children who experience bullying are more likely to show
psychotic symptoms later in life than their uninvolved
peers (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.144.04).
Overall, programs are effective in reducing bullying
perpetration (OR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.261.47) and
victimization (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.181.42) with small
but substantial effect sizes. The most important elements
related to decrease in bullying were parent and teacher
trainings, supervision in the playground, disciplinary
methods, classroom management and rules,
whole-school universal policy against bullying,
conferences in school, cooperative group work and
providing information to parents. Decrease in bullying
was also related to the number of elements, duration and
intensity of the programs. Results were better with older
children. Work with peers was related to increased
victimization.
Verbal and sexually charged victimization was more
frequent in GLB group when compared to the majority
group (OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.633.08). The same was true
for physical and sexual victimization (OR = 1.82, 95% CI:
1.292.58). Psychological outcomes such as suicide
ideation or attempt, sexual and physical abuse,
substance use and mental health issues; social outcomes
such as perception of hostile school climate and lack of
social support were more common in GLB compared to
the heterosexual youth. Physical outcomes were the
same for GLB and heterosexual participants.
Programs produce positive results (adjusted r = .12, 95%
CI: .08.17) but the size of the effect is small with 1%
impact for low-risk participants and 3.6% for high-risk
participants. At-risk status moderates the effect.
Longitudinal studies show that psychosomatic problems
are more common among victimized students compared
to non-victimized peers (OR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.763.24).
Cross-sectional studies show similar pattern (OR = 2.17,
95% CI: 1.912.46), although effect size decreased for
studies with more females.
Bullying (r = .25; 95% CI: .17.32) and cyberbullying
(r = .31; 95% CI: .27.36) perpetration are related to
moral disengagement.
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Table 1 (continued)
Study Databases and other sources
the authors.
Gini, Pozzoli, Lenzi, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the
and Vieno, (2014) Campbell Collaboration, and Scopus together
with cited by function in Scopus, review
articles, Headache journal and references of
the located articles
Hawker and Boulton PsycLit, BIDS ISI Social Sciences Citation
(2000) Index, OCLC Firstsearch, reviews, reference
lists, hand search of relevant journals and
communication with relevant authors.
Holt et al. (2015) PubMed, PsychInfo, Education Resources
Information Center, Cumulative Index to
Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, other
systematic reviews and references.
Kowalski et al. (2014) Academic Search Complete, Business Source
Complete, Communication & Mass Media
Complete, Criminal Justice Abstracts,
Education Research Complete, Family
Studies Abstracts, HealthSource:
Nursing/Academic Edition, Human
Resources Abstracts, MEDLINE,
PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Social
Sciences Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Full-text, and Web of Science,
reference lists of existing reviews, 16
specialized journals and contact with active
researchers in the eld.
Lee, Kim, and Kim Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, the Education
(2015) Resource Information Center, and the
Cochrane Database
Lereya, Samara, and Medline, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE.
Wolke (2013)
Merrell, Gueldner, PsycINFO, Educational Resources
Ross, and Isava Information Center (ERIC) and references
(2008)
Mitsopoulou and PsycInfo, ERIC,Web of Science, Google
Giovazolias (2015) Scholar and references of published review
studies.
N Main topics
20 Relationship between being
bullied and headache considering
cross-sectional and longitudinal
studies.
23 Relationship between peer
victimization and psychosocial
maladjustment focusing on
depression, loneliness,
generalized and social anxiety and
general and social esteem.
47 Relationship between
involvement in bullying as
perpetrators, victims or
bully/victims and suicidal
behavior and ideation.
131 Critical review of research on
cyberbullying together with a
meta-analysis of relationships
with face-to-face bullying and
different psychological and
behavioral variables considered as
risk and protective factors or
outcomes for perpetration and
victimization.
13 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
interventions focusing on
victimization as a primary
outcome measure.
70 Relationship between parenting
styles and parentchild
relationships with being a victim
or a bully/victim of traditional and
cyberbullying.
16 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
programs taking into account
different outcome variables
related to bullying.
19 Relationship between personality
variables and empathy with
involvement in bullying behavior.
5
Main ndings and conclusions
Being bullied is related to headache in longitudinal (OR =
2.10, 95% CI: 1.193.71) and cross-sectional (OR = 2.00,
95% CI: 1.702.35) research. For the latter, the magnitude
of the effect size decreased for studies with more females.
Victimization was signicantly related to depression
(r = .45 with shared method variance and r = .29 with no
shared method variance), loneliness (r = .32 with shared
method variance and r = .25 with no shared method
variance), generalized and social anxiety (r = .25 with
shared method variance and r = .19 with no shared
method variance), general self-esteem (r = .39 with
shared method variance and r = .21 with no shared
method variance) and social-esteem (r = .35 with shared
method variance and r = .23 with no shared method
variance). No condence intervals were reported.
Signicant relations were found between victimization
and suicidal ideation (OR = 2.34; 95% CI: 2.032.69) and
behavior (OR = 2.94; 95% CI: 2.363.67), perpetration and
ideation (OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.672.69) and behavior (OR
= 2.62; 95% CI: 1.514.55) and also being a bully/victim
and ideation (OR = 3.81; 95% CI: 2.136.80) or behavior
(OR = 4.02; 95% CI: 2.396.76).
Besides cybervictimization (r = .51, 95% CI: .48.55) and
traditional bullying (r = .45, 95% CI: .41.48), the most
important risk factors for cyberbullying perpetration were
normative beliefs about aggression (r = .37, 95% CI:
.24.48) and moral disengagement (r = .27, 95% CI:
.20.34). School safety (r = .13, 95% CI: .16 to .10),
empathy (r = .12, 95% CI: .14 to .09) and school
climate
(r = .12, 95% CI: .14 to .10) were the most important
protective factors. Drug and alcohol use was the most
important outcome (r = .27, 95% CI: .22.31). For
cybervictimization, besides traditional victimization
(r = .40, 95% CI: .37.42) and bullying (r = .25, 95% CI:
.23.28), anger (r = .20, 95% CI: .16.23) and risky online
behavior (r = .18, 95% CI: .14.21) were the most
important risk factors, school safety the most important
protective factor (r = .22, 95% CI: .24 to .19) and
stress
(r = .34, 95% CI: .29.38) and suicidal ideation (r = .27,
95% CI: .24.31) were the most important outcomes.
Anti-bullying programs had signicant but rather small
effect on victimization (d = .15, 95% CI: .20.10).
Considering different program strategies, moderate
overall effect size was achieved for training in emotional
control (d = .46). The rest of the effect sizes were rather
small.
Victimization was related to less positive parenting
(g = .19; 95% CI: .23 to .15) being less likely to live
with authoritative parents, with less communication,
supervision, warmth and affection or parental support.
Victimization was also related to more negative parenting
(g = .26; 95% CI: .16.37) with more abuse and neglect,
maladaptive parenting and overprotection.
Focusing on variables specically regarding involvement
in bullying reported through self-reports, small but
meaningful changes were found in positive attitudes
toward bullying (d = .15) victimization (d = .27),
witnessing bullying (d = .35) and intervention to stop it
(d = .17). Teacher reports showed small effects on
witnessed students being bullied (d = .16), staff
response (d = .30) and attitudes about school safety
(d = .16) and large effects for knowledge on bullying
prevention (d = 1.52) and intervention skills (d = .99).
Peer-reports showed small effect on participation in bullying
roles (d = .32). No meaningful effect sizes (below .15) were
found in the rest of the outcomes. No condence intervals
were reported. The authors conclude that the impact of the
programs on actual bullying behavior is low.
The strongest relationships were found between bullying
perpetration and, agreeableness (r = .24, 95% CI: .31
to .17), conscientiousness (r = .15, 95% CI: .23 to
(continued on next page)
6 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Table 1 (continued)
Study Databases and other sources
Modecki, Minchin, PSYCInfo, PubMed, Educational Resources
Harbaugh, Guerra, Information Centre, Proquest Dissertations
and Runions (2014) and Theses, Scopus, Google Scholar and
references.
Nakamoto and PsycINFO, PsychARTICLES, Educational
Schwartz (2009) Resource Information Center, Google Scholar
and references.
Polanin et al. (2012) Dissertation Abstracts International,
Education Resources Information Center
(ERIC), PsycINFO, Medline, Science Direct
and references.
Reijntjes, Kamphuisb, PsycLIT, PsycInfo, Web of Science, PubMed,
Prinziea, and Telch references and cited by option.
(2010)
Reijntjes et al. (2011) PsycLIT, PsycInfo, Web of Science, PubMed,
dissertation abstracts, references and cited
by option.
Tippett and Wolke Web of Knowledge, Scopus, PubMed,
(2014) PsycINFO, EMBASE and hand search of
selected journals.
Tto, Farrington, and Australian Criminology Database (CINCH),
Lsel (2012) Australian Education Index, British Education
Index, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register,
C2-SPECTR, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Data-
base of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness
(DARE), Dissertation Abstracts, Educational
Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC),
Ethos-Beta,EMBASE, Google Scholar, Index to
Theses Database, MEDLINE, National Criminal
Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), PsychInfo/
Psychlit, Sociological Abstracts, Social
Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Web of
Knowledge; names of the recognized
researchers, 63 journals and contacts with
colleagues4
Tto, Farrington, See Tto et al. (2012)
Lsel, and Loeber
(2011a)
Tto et al. (2011a) See Tto et al. (2012)
N Main topics
80 Prevalence of bullying and
cyberbullying perpetration and
victimization in different contexts
taking into account also
moderating variables. Correlation
between bullying and
cyberbullying.
33 Relationship between peer
victimization and academic
achievement.
12 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
programs in relation to bystander
intervention behavior.
18 Internalizing problems in children
predicted by peer victimization
based on longitudinal prospective
studies.
14 Externalizing problems in
children predicted by peer
victimization based on
longitudinal prospective studies.
28 Relationship between
involvement in bullying as
perpetrators, victims or
bully/victims and socioeconomic
status.
28 Perpetration and victimization as
predictors of violence later in life
reviewing longitudinal
prospective studies on the topic.
18 Bullying perpetration and
victimization as predictors of drug
use later in life reviewing
prospective longitudinal studies.
28 Bullying victimization as a
predictor of depression later in life
reviewing longitudinal studies on
the topic.
Main ndings and conclusions
.07), and affective empathy (r = .16, 95% CI:
.19.12). For victimization, the strongest relationships
were found with neuroticism (r = .24, 95% CI: .18.29).
Weighted mean prevalence rates for traditional
perpetration was of 35% (95% CI: .34.35), traditional
victimization was of 36% (95% CI: .36.36),
cyber-perpetration was of 16% (95% CI: .15.16) and
cybervictimization was of 15% (95% CI: .15.15). Higher
prevalence rates are found when a clear denition of the
phenomena is provided, behavioral examples are
related to lower rates (except for traditional
perpetration where they are higher). Including the
word bully is related to lower rates, including words
tease or fun relates to higher rates. Randomization
is related to lower rates. Medium to strong correlations
were found between cyberbullying and bullying
perpetration (r = .47, 95% CI: .47.47) and
victimization (r = .40, 95% CI: .40.41)
There is a weak but signicant negative relationship
between peer victimization and academic achievement
(r = .12; 95% CI: .15 to .09). There is no difference
between boys and girls and this relationship is mediated
by methodologies of the studies (e.g. informants or
indicators).
Programs had positive small effect on bystander
intervention (g = .20, 95% CI: .11.29), greater in high
school compared to primary schools, greater when
facilitators were other than the teachers (researchers,
counselors or software). The programs had very small
effects on empathy (g = .05, 95% CI: .07.17).
Victimization signicantly predicts internalizing problems
over time (r = .18, 95% CI = .12.24) and, on the other
hand, internalizing problems signicantly predict
victimization over time (r = .08, 95% CI .01.16), although
the effect size was very small for the latter.
Victimization signicantly predicts externalizing problems
over time (r = .14, 95% CI: .09.19) and, on the other
hand, externalizing problems signicantly predict
victimization over time (r = .13, 95% CI: .04.21).
Victimization was positively related to low
socioeconomic status (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.361.71)
and negatively related to high socioeconomic status
(OR = .73, 95% CI: .63.86). Similar results were found
for perpetration and socioeconomic status (lowOR =1.14,
95% CI: 1.021.27 and highOR = .89, 95% CI: .83.95).
Being a bully-victim was only positively related to low
socioeconomic status (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.222.39). Some
of these associations become much weaker when adjusted
for publication bias.
Perpetration was an important predictor of violence later
in life (adjusted OR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.692.45). The effect
size was negatively related to the age of perpetration
assessment, the age of outcome assessment and the length
of follow-ups (the effects of perpetration seem to decrease
with time but early exposure predicts higher risk).
Victimization was also a predictor of later violence,
although with smaller effect size (adjusted OR = 1.42;
95% CI: 1.251.62) and no moderators were signicant.
Bullying perpetrators are at higher risk for drug use
(OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.603.07) although much
variation is explained by other factors such as
childhood individual, family and school risk (adjusted
OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.201.66). Victimization did not
predict drug use later in life (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95%
CI: .941.11).
Victimization is a predictor of depression later in life
(adjusted OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.712.32). This effect
size was negatively related to the age of victimization
assessment and negatively related to the length of the
follow-ups and the age at outcome measures (the effects of
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121 7

Table 1 (continued)

Study Databases and other sources N Main topics Main ndings and conclusions

victimization seem to decrease with time but early

Tto, Farrington, See Tto et al. (2012)
Lsel, and Loeber
(2011b)
van Dam et al. (2012) PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and references
van Geel, Vedder, & Psychinfo, ERIC, MEDLINE and references
Tanilon (2014a)
van Geel, Vedder & PsycINFO, ERIC, MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE,
Tanilon (2014b) Dissertation Abstracts International, other
reviews and references.
van Geel, Vedder, & PsycINFO,Web of Science, OvidMEDLINE,
Tanilon (2014c) review articles and references.
van Geel, Goemans, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Embase, LILACS,
and Vedder recent review studies and references.
(in press)
Vitoroulis and PsycInfo, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations &
Vaillancourt (2015) Theses, PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar,
conferences (i.e., Society of Research on
Adolescence, International Society for Re-
search on Aggression, Society for Research in
Child Development), references and govern-
ment reports.
Yeager, Fong, Lee, and PsycINFO, ERIC, Proquest Dissertations and
Espelage (in press) Theses, Google Scholar, Social Science
Citation Index, EBSCO, ASSIA, PubMed,
Sociological Abstracts, GALE, Academic
Search Complete, MedLine, Campbell
Collaboration, Cochrane Collaboration,
previous review studies, communication
with experts and authors.
1
Since the report is an extended version of the study, information was extracted from both documents.2 Since the latest version Gini and Pozzoli (2013) includes all the studies from the
previous version Gini and Pozzoli (2009) and newer, information in the table is extracted from the former.3 Only articles on bullying and cyberbullying were included in our study.
4
Database list was extracted from the report published by Farrington et al. (2012) cited in the method section of the article for details on searches. N = number of papers included in
the systematic review (not necessarily in the meta-analysis). Overall effect sizes and condence intervals for the main variables are reported in the table when available. When adjusted
and unadjusted effect sizes were reported, adjusted effect sizes are included in the table.
28 Bullying perpetration as a
predictor of offending later in life
reviewing longitudinal studies on
the topic.
14 Relationship between
victimization and psychotic
symptoms in clinical and general
population.
16 Relationship between overweight
and obesity with peer
victimization
25 Relationship between
involvement in bullying as
perpetrators, victims or
bully/victims and weapon
carrying.
36 Relationship between peer
victimization (from cyberbullying
and bullying) and suicidal
ideation or attempts.
21 Relationship between peer
victimization and sleeping
problems.
105 Ethnic group differences in peer
victimization considering
majorityminority comparison
and also comparisons between
specic groups.
19 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
programs in older adolescents
considering developmental
changes and reviewing studies
that administered programs to
different age groups and
measured level of the
phenomenon and performing a
hierarchical meta-analysis.
exposure predicts higher risk). The effect size was still
strong after controlling for other risk factors.
Bullying perpetration predicts offending later in life
(adjusted OR = 2.50; 95% CI: 2.033.08. This effect
size was positively related to the age of bullying
evaluation and negatively related to the length of the
follow-ups and the outcome measures (stronger effect
of perpetration in the short term). The effect size was
still strong after controlling for other risk factors.
Victimization is related to the development of psychotic
symptoms in general population (adjusted OR = 2.3 95%
CI: 1.53.4). This relationship seems to be stronger with
increased duration, frequency and severity. Results of
clinical samples are mixed and data not appropriate for a
meta-analysis.
Peer- victimization is more common among youth with
overweight (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.101.29)and obesity
(OR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.341.72) problems in comparison to
their normal-weight peers.
Victimization is related to weapon carrying (adjusted
OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.602.36) with no signicant
moderators. Perpetration is also related to weapon
carrying (adjusted OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.902.77) with
stronger effect size in studies with higher response
rate (above 75%) and no other signicant moderators.
No differences were found between the U.S. studies
and research from other countries for victims and
perpetrators. Very strong relations were found
between being a bully/victim and weapon carrying
(OR = 4.95; 95% CI: 3.776.50) stronger for the
studies conducted in the U.S. in comparison to other
countries.
Peer victimization was related to suicidal ideation
(adjusted OR = 2.18, 95% CI: 2.052.32) with stronger
effect for cyberbullying (OR =3.12, 95% CI: 2.404.05)
than for traditional bullying (OR = 2.16, 95% CI:
2.052.28) with no other signicant moderators. Peer
victimization was also related to suicidal attempts
(OR = 2.55; 95% CI: 1.953.34) with no signicant
moderators and no separate analysis for traditional
vs. cyberbullying due to the low number of studies.
Sleeping problems are more common among peer
victimized children if compared to non-victimized peers
(OR = 2.21; 95% CI: 2.012.44). This relationship is
stronger in younger children.
There was no difference in peer victimization suffered by
majority and minority groups taking into account all the
studies (d = .01, 95% CI: .09 to.10) and majority suffered
more victimization in the US in comparison to the
minorities (d = .23; 95% CI: .22.44) and minorities
suffered more victimization if compared to the majority in
the UK (d = .16; 95% CI: .02.35). Very small overall effect
sizes (d b .1) were found in comparison between specic
groups although some of them were stronger for some age
groups or measures.
Anti-bullying programs in older adolescents are less
effective than in younger participants (correlation
between effect size and age: simpler = .20 and
within-studyr = .43). A three-level meta-analysis
with within-study analysis shows that there is a
non-linear discontinuity in relation to age. The effect
in grades 17 was small (d = .13, no CI reported) and
in grades 8 + the programs were ineffective (d = .01,
no CI reported) with a signicant decline in grades
7th to 12th (b = .06, Z = 2.40, p = .016). Thus,
programs effectiveness show slight increase between
1st and 7th grade and then decline from 7th to 12th
grade so that after the 10th grade the effects might
possibly even become iatrogenic (not signicant on
average but signicant in some studies).
8 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Table 2
Non-meta-analytic systematic reviews included in the study.
Study Databases and other sources
Albdour and Krouse CINAHL, Pubmed, and Psyc-INFO
(2014)
Antoniadou and Cambridge Journals, Greek National Archive of PhD 15 Research on cyberbullying in Greece
Kokkinos (2015) Theses, HEAL-Link Library, ERIC, Informaworld,
Ingenta Connect, Oxford ProQuest Research Library,
Reference Online, PsycInfo, Sage, Scirus, Science
Direct, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, Wilson
Education and Wilson Social Sciences and a a
general Internet search
Baldry and Farrington Review studies, PsychInfo, major journals in the
(2007) eld and contacting leading researchers
Berne et al. (2013) EbscoHost, ScienceDirect, OVID, InformaWorld and
contacting members of a European COST action
Bottino, Bottino, PubMed and Virtual Health Library (BVS) including 10 Prevalence of cyberbullying, its
Regina, Correia, and Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health
Ribeiro (2015) Sciences Information (LILACS), Spanish Biblio-
graphic Index of Health Sciences (SBIHS), MEDLINE,
The Cochrane Library and SciELO.
Cantone et al. (2015) PubMed/Medline, Ebsco and consulting experts in
the eld
Chalamandaris and MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, ERIC, and previous reviews.
Piette (2015)
Collier, van Beusekom, ERIC, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, own
Bos, and Sandfort les and references.
(2013)
Evans et al. (2014) Campbell Collaboration, Cochran Library,
Dissertation Abstracts, ERIC, Google Scholar, Index
to Thesis Database, PsycInfo, PubMed, Social
Sciences Citation Index, Social Services Abstracts,
Sociological Abstracts, and Social Work Abstracts
and experts for the grey literature
Goodman, Medaris, ProQuest Education Journals and Academic Search 10 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
Verity, and Hott Complete and the references of the selected articles
(2013)
Hamm et al. (2015) Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, ERIC,
Medline/PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Dissertations
& Theses Database (Proquest), key journals,
internet search engines and references of the
selected articles
N Main topics
23 Bullying and victimization among
African American adolescents focusing
on its prevalence, risk and protective
factors and its relationship with psy-
chological health.
taking into account the organisms in-
volved in safe use of the new
technology, published research and
scientic meeting presentations.
16 Effectiveness of programs to prevent
bullying including description of core
elements and effect sizes of main
anti-bullying programs in 11 different
countries.
61 Cyberbullying evaluation instruments
considering its reliability, validity,
conceptual and denitional basis.
relationship to other variables and
adolescent mental health.
17 Effectiveness of Randomized Control
Trials conducted between 2000 and
2013 in schools against bullying and
cyberbullying. Studies were analyzed
taking into account types of
interventionuniversal or focused on
specic students.
62 Research methodologies utilized in
anti-bullying interventions considering
different variables related to
population and intervention
characteristics, design, outcomes and
measures, data collection and analyses.
39 Peer victimization in adolescents
related to sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression focusing on
health outcomes.
32 Effectiveness of bullying prevention
programs conducted between 2009
and 2013 focusing on perpetration and
victimization.
interventions in elementary and
middle schools describing their main
components and ndings.
13 Bullying and cyberbullying in deaf and
hearing impaired students, describing
topics, the main characteristics of the
participants, age, methods and key
ndings.
Main ndings and conclusions
Prevalence of bullying and victimization in
African American adolescents is higher in com-
parison to other students. Risk and protective fac-
tors are mainly related to other kinds of violence,
family structure, substance use, self-efcacy and
beliefs on aggression. Involvement in bullying is
related to health issues such as depression and
physical health.
Cyberbullying is an existing phenomenon in
Greece, although research on the topic is still in its
early stage of development. Most of the studies
are descriptive, not specically focused on the
phenomenon and/or have small samples. Most of
the data were collected by European and national
institutions and not all the research has been
published in scientic journals. More studies are
needed.
About half of the programs produce desirable
results. Information on the effectiveness of
different components is rarely available and, in
general, the authors recommend improving
designs and methodology used to clarify the
effectiveness of the programs.
The concept of cyberbullying is not used in about
half of the instruments and is operationalized
differently throughout the instruments (e.g.
including or not components such as
intentionality, imbalance of power, repetition,
etc.). Devices and media also vary among studies.
Less than 30% of the studies performed factor
analyses. Almost all the instruments are
self-reports. Reliability and validity of the
instruments are not fully reported.
Prevalence rates and related variables differed
among studies ranging from 6.5% to 72%.
Involvement in cyberbullying was related to the
involvement in traditional bullying. Cyberbullying
was also related to emotional and psychosomatic
difculties.
Whole-school interventions seem to be the most
effective. In general, most of the programs are
effective in the short term but their long-term
effects are still unclear mostly because the
reported follow-up periods seem to be short.
There is a great variability in research
methodologies utilized in anti-bullying
interventions.
Peer victimization related to sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression is related to
negative outcomes such as lower sense of
belonging to school, depressive symptoms and to
suicidality according to some studies (mixed
results in case of the latter) with some studies
reporting also alcohol and substance use.
About half of the studies report signicant
decrease in perpetration and almost 70% report
signicant decrease in victimization. There are
differences in a way that the involvement is
measured with studies utilizing multi-item and
single-item instruments. It is recommended to
improve measurement.
In most of the cases (7 out of 8), intervention
programs are useful to decrease bullying
behaviors. Main components and ndings are
described separately for each program.
The number and the quality of the studies on the
topic are low. It seems that prevalence of bullying
in deaf and hard of hearing students is higher
than in the hearing children but more studies are
needed to conrm it.
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121 9

Table 2 (continued)

Study Databases and other sources N Main topics Main ndings and conclusions

Hamm et al. (2015) MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ERIC, PubMed, CINAHL, 34 Prevalence of cyberbullying and The median prevalence of cyber-victimization was of
Academic Search Complete, Alt HealthWatch, relationship between the phenomenon 23% and of perpetration of 15.2%. Common forms of
Health Source, Communication & Mass Media and other variables. cyberbullying were insults/name-calling, rumors or
Complete, Web of Knowledge, and ProQuest circulating pictures. Most of the studies show that it
Dissertation & Theses Database, key organizations, occurs in similar age groups and increases with age
journals, proceedings and references. being girls more victimized and with more
perpetrators among boys. Results on the relationship
with anxiety were inconsistent and the relationship
with depression seems to be more evident.
Harcourt, Jasperse, and PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, 13 Parents perspective on bullying Parents demand more information on the
Green (2014) ProQuest, A+ Education, and Academic Search focusing on their denition, blaming phenomenon. Their denitions are diverse with
Premier, reference lists and specic journals. the victim and perceiving it as a normal difculties with distinguishing bullying from other
behavior, the way of coping and behavior and normalizing it. The principal coping
responsibility for dealing with strategy is to help dealing with stress, some indirect
bullying, negative consequences, and specic strategies and involving the school.
disclosure, awareness and support. Parents often felt negative emotions related to
bullying and frequently were not fully aware of the
situation. They perceive that school response should
be improved.
Hong and Espelage MEDLINE, PSYCINFO (Psychological Abstracts), 20 Mixed method research on bullying Mixed methodology might provide new insights
(2012) Google Scholar, review of literature reviews and perpetration and victimization since some phenomena are difcult to describe
dissertations. utilizing qualitative and quantitative only with qualitative or quantitative studies.
methodologies. The review focuses on Findings might be complimentary strengthening
the new insights gained from this type the results validity. Divergent results might lead
of studies, complimentary and to re-conceptualizations.
divergent ndings between the two.
Hong, Lee, Lee, Lee, and RISS for Higher Education (Korean), Google Scholar, 43 Studies conducted on bullying in Korea Studies on bullying in Korea are related to
Garbarino (2014) Medline, ProQuest, PubMed, and PsycINFO on participants who reside in the microsystem components such as family, peers and
(English) country analyzing the ndings in terms school; mesosystem such as relationship between
of microsystem, mesosystem and school and families (still understudied) and
macrosystem. macrosystem concerning religion and policies.
Kim and Leventhal Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, 37 Relationship between involvement in Most of the studies show increased suicidal ideation
(2008) Psychlnfo, and Ovid Medline bullying and suicide analyzing general in victims, perpetrators and bully/victims from
and special populations of adolescents. general population. Similar situation was found in
victims from special education, although
perpetrators from the group of juvenile offenders
showed decreased risk. Increased risk of attempts
were found in victims and bullies from general and
special populations.
Klomek, Sourander, PsycNet, Medline and references of relevant 31 Relationship between bullying and Most of the cross-sectional studies show
and Gould (2010) articles suicide in cross-sectional and increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempt in
longitudinal studies taking into bullies and victims. Most of the studies report
account ideation and attempt. stronger relation in females than males.
Longitudinal studies are scarce, but also suggest
increased risk for children involved in bullying
with some particular issues related to sex.
Machado Azeredo, Medline (through PubMed), PsycInfo, Web of 31 Contextual risk factors for bullying Contextual risk factors for bullying in school and
Madalena Rinaldi, Knowledge, and SciELO Library throughout observational studies. classroom seem to be related to inequalities in
Leite de Moraes, income, poverty, lack of anti-bullying norms,
Bertazzi Levy, and decient classroom management and teacher
Rossi Menezes support. Results related to school and classroom
(2015) size or location differed among studies. Inequalities
in income and violence in the city or country were
also related to bullying.
O'Brien (2009) British Education Index, Web of Science, Google, 5 Teachers employ broader denitions of bullying
Google scholar, key journals and professionals Denitions of bullying employed by in comparison to students. Denitions included
secondary students and teachers in the themes such as direct bullying, social exclusion,
UK. power imbalance, repetition, intending harm,
how bullying affects the victim, sexualized
bullying, focus on difference and coercion.
Patton, Hong, Patel, and Google Scholar, ProQuest, ERIC, and PsycInfo. 24 Qualitative studies on bullying Qualitative studies focus mostly on elaborating and
Kral (in press) considering the main focus of this kind explicating the experiences of children involved in
of studies. bullying in their own words. Naturalistic inquiries in
which researchers investigate themes when they
emerge are common.
Perren et al. (2012) Relevant databases (PsychInfo, Pubmed, ERIC, 36 Successful responses in tackling Peer intervention and parental supervision and
SOCindex, Web of Science, etc) and EU Kids Online cyberbullying such as reducing risks, behavior seem to be useful in preventing
II study combatting the problem and buffering cyberbullying. For combating the problem and
its effects by students, parents and buffering its effects, victims report confronting
teachers. the perpetrators, technical solutions such as
blocking are used together with seeking support
from friends and ignoring the problem. Students
are rather skeptical when seeking support from
parents or teachers. Most of the studies focus on
use of strategies and not on their success.

(continued on next page)

10 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Table 2 (continued)
Study Databases and other sources
Rose, Monda-Amaya, EBSCO and additional databases
and Espelage (2011)
Ryan and Smith (2009) Medline, PsycInfo, and ERIC
Shireen, Janapana, PubMed, PsychInfo, Medline and Google Scholar
Rehmatullah, Temuri,
and Azim (2014)
Smith, Schneider, PsychInfo, ERIC and Dissertation Abstracts,
Smith, and contacting researchers and references.
Ananiadou (2004)
Sommer, Leuschner, PsychNET, PsychINFO, Pubmed, Scopus, Google
and Scheithauer Scholar, ScienceDirect, contacting experts and
(2014) reference.
Tokunaga (2010) EbscoHost, Lexis Nexis, JSTOR, and World-Cat. In
EbscoHost, Academic Search Premier, Business
Source Premier, Computer Source, Communication
and Mass Media Premier, ERIC, Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsychInfo were
searched together with the references.
Topper & Conrod (in Psychinfo, Scopus, PubMed and references
press)
Tto, Bowes, Australian Criminology Database (CINCH),
Farrington, and Lsel Australian Education Index, British Education
(2014) Index, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, C2-
-SPECTR, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Database of
Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), Dis-
sertation Abstracts, Educational Resources Infor-
mation Clearinghouse (ERIC), Ethos-Beta,EMBASE,
Google Scholar, Index to Theses Database,
MEDLINE, National Criminal Justice Reference Ser-
vice (NCJRS), PsychInfo/Psychlit, Sociological
Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI),
Web of Knowledge; names of the recognized
researchers, 63 journals and contacts with
colleagues1
van Noorden, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, references and
Haselager, Cillessen, existing reviews.
and Bukowski (2015)
N Main topics
32 Bullying perpetration and
victimization in special education
taking into account school
characteristics, type of disability and
personal attributes.
31 Evaluation practices utilized in
anti-bullying programs focusing on the monitoring related to verication of the
application of the assessment
standards.
28 Relationship between involvement in
bullying and suicidal ideation and
attempt.
14 Effectiveness of anti-bullying programs The vast majority of effects are small, negligible
focusing on components such as
school, classroom, parents, peers and
individuals, analyzing effects
separately for each study (no overall)
considering perpetration and
victimization.
35 Relationship between involvement in
bullying as perpetrators of victims and found in 29.9% of the cases and in 31.2% it was
school shooting.
25 Research on cyberbullying
victimization taking into account its
prevalence, the role of age and gender, occur in all age groups and ndings on the
disturbances related to the
phenomenon and coping strategies.
7 Relationship between bullying
victimization and alcohol misuse in
adolescents.
8 Factors that interrupt the continuity
from bullying to internalizing and
externalizing problems later in life
reviewing prospective longitudinal
studies.
40 Relationship between involvement in
bullying as perpetrators, victims,
defenders and bystanders with
cognitive and affective empathy.
Main ndings and conclusions
In inclusive settings, victimization rates of
students with and without disabilities are usually
similar but they seem to be higher for students
with disabilities in segregated settings. Teachers
and students perceptions of perpetration vary
among studies. Higher rates are observed in
students with more severe disabilities.
Victimization is related to character traits and
ability to interpret social cues.
Program evaluations are decient. Program
implementations (e.g. adherence, quality of
delivery or dosage) was absent in more than one
third of the evaluations and the rest of the studies
used on average only 1 method. None of the
randomized controlled trials meet all the
assumptions to be classied as such. Inclusion of
qualitative methods is uncommon and the
post-tests/follow-ups are short. Most studies use
two or more evaluation methods but more than a
half use only one informant. Effect sizes are rarely
reported and hierarchical modeling is infrequent.
Involvement in bullying is related to suicidal
ideation and attempt. The risk seems to be higher
in girls in comparison to boys.
and negative. Formal monitoring led to more
positive outcomes for victimization.
Evidence of physical victimization in shooters was
explicitly excluded. Peer rejection was more
frequent (53.7%) and explicitly excluded in 14.9%.
In 13.4% of the cases, shooters were found to be
perpetrators.
Victimization rates vary among studies and are
usually reported between 20% and 40%. It might
relationship with age are inconsistent, although it
seems to be curvilinear with the highest
prevalence between 7th and 8th grades. Studies
are also inconsistent in relation to gender with
the majority of studies showing no sex
differences. Negative consequences depend on
severity, frequency and duration with most of the
studies nding negative consequences on
academic performance and psychosocial
problems. Technical coping is common and
passive strategies or reporting to adults are
uncommon.
Most of the studies (5 out of 7) found positive
relationship between victimization and alcohol
misuse.
Review of the studies suggest that resilience after
being involved in bullying as perpetrators or
victims is related to high school achievement and
social skills. Also strong family attachment and
stable structure, together with social support and
prosocial friends protect from developing
problems later in life.
Perpetration seems to be negatively related to
cognitive and affective empathy, victimization to
cognitive empathy only. Defending seems to be
positively related to both cognitive and affective
empathy whereas bystanding yields mixed
results.
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121 11

Table 2 (continued)

Study Databases and other sources N Main topics Main ndings and conclusions

Vessey, Strout, DiFazio, EBSCO search querying CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC and 31 Psychometric properties of self-report
and Walker (2014) PsychINFO. References, Google, Google Scholar and instruments to assess bullying
the Compendium of Assessment Tools on the US
Department of Health and Human Services website.
Vivolo-Kantor et al. PsychInfo, PsychArticles, MedLine, ERIC, the
(2014) Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, the
Professional Development Collection, SocIndex
with Full Text, Expanded Academic Index ASAP,
Science Direct and a previous review.
Vreeman and Carroll MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Educational
(2007) Resources Information Center, the Physical
Education Index, Sociology: A SAGE Full-Text
Collection, Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry and
references.
1
Database list was extracted from the report published by Farrington et al. (2012) cited in the method section of the article for details on searches.
reviewing papers which primary
objective was to evaluate the
psychometric properties of the
instrument.
41 Bullying and cyberbullying
measurement strategies reviewing and studies. Self-reports are the most common
analyzing their content.
26 Effectiveness of anti-bullying
interventions taking into account
categories such as curriculum,
multidisciplinary/whole-school, social programs. No bullying reduction was found in 3
skills, mentoring and social worker
support.
Among the included instruments, 26% present
test-retest reliability ndings, 90% reported
internal consistency reliability measures (with
few studies reporting Cronbach's alphas below
.70), 26% included item-total correlations.
Content validity related to the item development
procedure was reported in 48% of the studies,
although without describing detailed procedure.
Information related to oor-ceiling effect is
almost completely absent. Factorial validity was
reported in 65% of the studies. Construct validity
(e.g. convergent, divergent) was present in 100%
of the reports. Predictive validity measures are
very scarce. Measurement invariance among
groups was evaluated in 29%, 35% informed on
the administration length and none reported the
time needed for scoring.
Measurement strategies are inconsistent among
instruments. Measured use varying terminology
and most of them include physical and verbal
bullying. About one fourth include denition of
bullying and about one third include the word
bullying. It is uncommon to include aspect such
as repetition, power imbalance, aggression and
intentional harm. All reported validity and
reliability but with different statistics.
Curriculum based programs reduced bullying in 4
out of 10 studies; whole-school multidisciplinary
intervention reduced bullying in 7 out of 10
out of 4 social skills interventions. The mentoring
study (1 out of 1) and social worker support (1
out of 1) yielded desirable results. There was a
great variability among the programs within the
categories in duration, implementation strategies,
etc.

data. Also, countries and continents were found to be signicant moder-
ators, namely, boys cyberbullied more in some geographic zones and
there were no sex differences in other zones. All the effect sizes were
below .01 except for Germany (r = .18, 95% CI: .15.21).
A broad meta-analysis on individual and contextual predictors of
bullying including 153 studies conducted by Cook et al. (2010) found
that more boys were involved in perpetration (r = .18, 95% CI:
.15.23), victimization (r = .06, 95% CI: .05.10), or bully/victim status
(r = .10, 95% CI: .04.12) with small effect sizes. Relationships between
age and perpetration were weak (r = .09, 95% CI: .05.12) and absent
for victimization (r = .01, 95% CI: .05.07) and bully/victim status
(r = .01, 95% CI: .01.04).
Another broad meta-analysis conducted by Kowalski et al. (2014)
who synthesized 131 studies on risk and protective factors and out-
comes of cyberbullying included age, among other variables, in relation
to perpetration and victimization. The results show weak observed cor-
relation corrected for sample error for cyberbullying perpetration and
age (r = .05, 95% CI: .03.08), and non-signicant relationship with vic-
timization (r = .01 95% CI: .01 to .04).
Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias (2015) also performed a meta-
analysis on gender and age in relation to bullying. The study included
19 articles located by searches and inclusion/exclusion criteria
focused on the relationship between personality variables and
empathy with bullying. Results are presented as a forest plot with
Hedge's g for 11 studies on victimization and/or perpetration but no
overall effect size was calculated. More boys and girls were involved
according to the results of 10 out of 11 studies. The results section
also report that that younger children engage in more bullying behavior
(B = .0169, p b .001, SE = .001) providing no further details.
3.1.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews
A few systematic reviews focused on specic geographic zones such
as Greece (Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2015) or South Korea (Hong et al.,
2014). The former concludes that cyberbullying is an existing but
understudied phenomenon in Greece where research is mostly unspe-
cic, descriptive, or with small samples. The latter is based on a holistic
ecological framework showing that mesosystem variables are still
understudied. Both articles include only narrative results and do not cal-
culate common metrics.
Prevalence was also reported in non-meta-analytic systematic re-
views. Among them, Tokunaga (2010) found that the most frequent
cybervictimization rates were between 20% and 40%, although rates as
low as 6.5% and as high as 72% were also reported. The author attributed
the variability mostly to differences in dening the phenomenon.
Bottino et al. (2015) found very similar prevalence rates for
cyberbullying ranging from 6.5% to 72%. Hamm et al. (2015) reported
cyberbullying perpetration and victimization median rates of 15.2%
and 23%, respectively.
Qualitative results reported by Hamm et al. (2015) show that 6
studies found that cyberbullying increased with age and 4 studies
found no effect of age on this behavior. Rates of cybervictimization
are found to be higher in girls (according to 7 studies vs. 2 studies
with no sex-differences), whereas higher rates of cyber-perpetration
were found in boys (3 studies vs. 0). Tokunaga (2010) includes a nar-
rative description of contradictory ndings across the reviewed
studies and suggests a curvilinear relationship of cybervictimization
prevalence with age with the highest rates between 7th and 8th
grades. The majority of studies reviewed by this author found no dif-
ferences in cybervictimization rates between girls and boys.
12 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
3.2. Relationship between bullying and cyberbullying: Meta-analytic results
Modecki et al. (2014) found large samplesize weighted mean rela-
tionships between bullying and cyberbullying perpetration (r = .47,
95% CI: .47.47) and victimization (r = .40, 95% CI: .40.41) in a
meta-analysis including 80 studies. Correlations were stronger for rela-
tional perpetration, evaluations of perpetration that did not focus on
school-centered traditional bullying and that did not impose randomi-
zation. For victimization, stronger correlation was found for traditional
measures of relational victimization than other types of victimization.
Kowalski et al. (2014) included 131 studies and found that after
cybervictimization, traditional bullying perpetration was the most im-
portant risk factor for cyberbullying perpetration (r = .45, 95% CI:
.41.48) and, at the same time, traditional victimization was the stron-
gest risk factor for cybervictimization (r = .40, 95% CI: .37.42). Corre-
lation between cybervictimization and traditional victimization was
lower for middle school and high school if compared to participants
from middle and high schools included in the same sample. North
American samples showed bigger effect sizes for the relationships of
cybervictimization with bullying perpetration and victimization and
cyberbullying with traditional bullying when compared to other geo-
graphical zones. When the denition of bullying or the word bully
was included in the assessment, correlations between cyberbullying
and traditional victimization were smaller.
3.3. Minorities' involvement in bullying
3.3.1. Meta-analytic results
A meta-analysis conducted by Fedewa and Ahn (2011) included 18
studies on victimization in sexual-minority groups. It was found that
sexually charged victimization was more frequent in sexual minority
group when compared to the majority group (OR = 2.24, 95% CI =
1.633.08) with medium effect size. Also physical and sexual victimiza-
tion was higher in sexual minorities but with a smaller effect size
(OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.292.58). Outcomes of victimization were
also experienced more among sexual minorities with the largest effects
for physical and sexual abuse (OR = 3.47, 95% CI = 2.265.34), suicide
attempt (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.843.15), and ideation (OR = 2.17, 95%
CI: 1.762.66).
Van Geel et al. (2014a) synthesized ndings from 16 studies on the
relationship between overweight and obesity with peer victimization.
Peer victimization was more common among overweight youth
(OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.102.22) and youth with obesity (OR = 1.51,
95% CI: 1.341.72) compared to the normal-weight peers with small ef-
fect sizes. Results were not moderated by gender.
Ethnic differences in peer victimization were studied by Vitoroulis
and Vaillancourt (2015) synthesizing the results of 105 studies. Overall
effect size showed no difference in peer victimization suffered by major-
ity and minority groups (d = .01, 95% CI: .09 to .10). Moderator
analyses showed that majority suffered more victimization in the US
in comparison to minorities (d = .23, 95% CI: .22.44) and minority suf-
fered more victimization in the UK when compared to the minority
(d = .16; 95% CI: .02.35) with rather small effect sizes. Dyadic compar-
isons of different ethnic groups show small effect sizes (d b .1).
3.3.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews
Hamm et al. (2015) reviewed 7 studies on minorities' involvement
in cyberbullying with inconclusive results with some studies reporting
only rates for ethnic minorities, some nding more cyberbullying
among ethnic minorities, others among majorities, and 3 nding no eth-
nic differences. These results are narrative.
A non-meta-analytic systematic review on bullying among African
Americans found that, according to the majority of the studies, its
prevalence was higher in comparison to other students (Albdour &
Krouse, 2014). Narrative results of higher prevalence of involvement
in different roles, namely bullies, victims, or bully/victims are
inconsistent throughout the literature. The authors narratively describe
some risk and protective factors found among the reviewed studies
such as other kinds of violence, family structure, substance use, self-
efcacy, and beliefs on aggression. They also describe outcomes such
as depression and physical health issues.
Narrative results of another non-meta-analytic systematic review
led to the conclusion that peer victimization related to sexual orienta-
tion or gender identity/expression (Collier et al., 2013) is related to
lower sense of belonging to school, higher depressive symptoms, dis-
ruptions in educational trajectories, traumatic stress, and alcohol and
substance use. Results on suicidality were inconclusive. Another sys-
tematic review with narrative results examined bullying and
cyberbullying in deaf and hearing-impaired students (Hadjikakou &
Papas, 2012), suggesting higher prevalence in comparison to the hear-
ing peers. Nevertheless, results show that most of these studies are
qualitative or with small samples and, therefore, did not allow rm con-
clusions. Rose et al. (2011) found that the majority of studies on bully-
ing victimization among children with disabilities found higher rates in
comparison to the nondisabled students. Research in inclusive settings
found similar rates between students with and without disabilities.
3.4. Risk and protective factors
3.4.1. Meta-analytic results
Table 3 shows risk and protective factors for bullying and
cyberbullying with small, medium, and large effect sizes.
The meta-analysis conducted by Cook et al. (2010) including 153
studies divided predictors of bullying into individual and contextual
factors. The authors found that, besides gender and age (included in a
different section), individual predictors of perpetration were (ordered
by the effect sizes) externalizing behavior (r = .34, 95% CI: .30.38)
and other-related cognitions (e.g. perspective taking or normative
beliefs about others) (r = .34, 95% CI: .26 to .41), academic per-
formance (r = .21, 95% CI: .17 to .25), social problem solving
(r = .17, 95% CI: .11 to .22), internalizing behavior (r = .12, 95%
CI: .06.17), and social competence (r = .12, 95% CI: .05 to .19),
and self-related cognitions (r = 07, 95% CI: .02 to .14). Individual
predictors of victimization were social competence (r = .30, 95% CI:
.22 to .38), internalizing problems (r = .25, 95% CI: .20.28), self-
related cognitions (r = .16, 95% CI: .10 to .21), social problem
solving (r = .13, 95% CI: .06 to .18), externalizing behavior
(r = .12, 95% CI: .10.16), and academic performance (r = .04, 95%
CI: .01 to .08). Bully/victim status was predicted by individual fac-
tors such as self-related cognitions (e.g. self-respect or self-esteem)
(r = .40, 95% CI: .29 to .50), social-competence (r = .36, 95%
CI: .28 to .45), externalizing behavior (r = .33, 95% CI: .18.48),
and academic performance (r = .32, no CI reported), internalizing be-
havior (r = .22, 95% CI: .12.33), other related cognitions (r = .20,
no CI reported) and social problem solving (r = .18, 95% CI: .06 to
.30). Contextual predictors for perpetration were peer inuence
(r = .34, 95% CI: .26 to .42), community factors (r = .22, 95%
CI: .14 to .29), school climate (r = .18, 95% CI: .12 to .23),
family/home environment (r = .17, 95% CI: .13 to .20), and peer
status (r = .10, 95% CI: .06 to .14). Contextual predictors of
victimization were peer status (r = .35, 95% CI: .28 to .41), school
climate (r = .16, 95% CI: .10 to .21), community factors (r = .15,
95% CI: .08 to .22), and family/home environment (r .10, 95% CI:
.07 to .13). For bully/victims, contextual predictors were peer inu-
ence (r = .44, no CI reported), peer status (r = .36, 95% CI: .23 to
.49), school climate (r = .32, 95% CI: .26 to .38), and family/
home environment (r = .20, 95% CI: .11 to .29).
Some meta-analyses were also conducted on specic risk or
protective factors. Gini Pozzoli, and Hymel, (2014) included 15 studies
nding that moral disengagement was related to perpetration of
bullying (r = .25, 95% CI = .17.32) and cyberbullying (r = .31, 95%
CI = .27.36) both with medium effect sizes. Mitsopoulou and
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121 13

Table 3
Risk and protective factors in relation to bullying and cyberbullying.

Small effect sizes (r = .10.24, Medium effect sizes (r = .25.39, Large effect sizes r N .40 or
OR = 1.502.49, d or g = .20.49) OR = 2.504.29 d or g = .50.79) OR N 4.30 d or g = N .80

Bullying perpetration
Cook et al. (2010): Cook et al. (2010):
- Academic performance (), - Externalizing behavior (+),
- Social problem solving (), - Other-related cognitions (),
- Internalizing behavior (+), - Peer inuence ()
- Social competence (), Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel, (2014):
- Family/home environment (), - Moral disengagement (+)
- School climate (),
- Community factors ()
- Peer status ()
Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias (2015):
- Openness (),
- Neuroticism(+),
- Agreeableness ()
- Affective empathy ()

Bullying victimization
Cook et al. (2010): Cook et al. (2010):
- Externalizing behavior (+), - Internalizing problems (+),
- Self-related cognitions (), - Social competence (),
- Social problem solving (), - Peer status ()
- Family/home environment (),
- School climate (),
- Community factors ()
Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias (2015):
- Neuroticism (+)
Tippett and Wolke (2014):
- Low socioeconomic status (+)
- High socioeconomic status ()
Reijntjes et al. (2011)
- Externalizing problems (+)
Lereya et al. (2013), including cyber-victimization:
- Parental involvement and support ()
- Warmth and affection ()
- Negative parenting in general (+),
- Abuse and neglect (+),
- Maladaptive parenting (+)

Bully-Victim
Cook et al. (2010): Cook et al. (2010): Cook et al. (2010):
- Internalizing behavior (+), - Externalizing behavior (+), - Peer inuence ()
- Other related cognitions (), - Social-competence (),
- Social problem solving () - Self-related cognitions (),
- Family/home environment () - Academic performance (),
Tippett and Wolke (2014): - School climate ()
- low socioeconomic status (+) - Peer status ()
Lereya et al. (2013), including cyber-bully/victimization:
- Positive parenting in general (),
- Authoritative parents (),
- Parental involvement and support (),
- Supervision (),
- Warmth and affection ()
- Overall negative parenting (+)

Cyber-perpetration
Kowalski et al. (2014): Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel,(2014); Kowalski et al. (2014):
- Frequency of Internet use (+), Kowalski et al. (2014): - Cybervictimization (+)
- Anger (+), - moral disengagement (+)
- Risky online behavior (+), Kowalski et al. (2014):
- Narcissism (+), - Normative beliefs about aggression (+)
- Empathy (),
- School climate ()
- School safety ()

Cybervictimization
Kowalski et al. (2014):
- Frequency of Internet use (+),
- Moral disengagement (+),
- Risky online behavior (+)
- Hyperactivity (+)
- School safety ()
- School climate ()

Note: (+) = positive effect, () = negative effect.

14 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Giovazolias (2015) synthesized 19 studies nding relationships be-
tween bullying perpetration and personality variables such as openness
(r = .11, 95% CI: .19 to .03), neuroticism (r = .10, 95% CI: .04.15),
extraversion (r = .08, 95% CI: .03.12), agreeableness (r = .24, 95% CI:
.31 to .17), conscientiousness (r = .08, 95% CI: .23 to .07),
cognitive empathy (r = .08, 95% CI: .12 to .04), and affective
empathy (r = .16, 95% CI: .19 to .12). For victimization, the only
relationship was found with neuroticism (r = .24, 95% CI: .18.29).
Based on 131 empirical studies, Kowalski et al. (2014) reported risk
and protective factors for cyberbullying perpetration and victimization.
These factors included traditional bullying, traditional victimization,
and age, which were included in the corresponding paragraphs. Other
risk factors for cyberbullying perpetration were cybervictimization
(r = .51, 95% CI: .48.55), normative beliefs about aggression (r = .37,
95% CI: .24.48), moral disengagement (r = .27, 95% CI: .20.34), risky
online behavior (r = .23, 95% CI: .20.26), narcissism (r = .22, 95% CI:
.18.26), frequency of Internet use (r = .20, 95% CI: .12.28), and
anger (r = .20, 95% CI: .17.22). Protective factors against cyberbullying
perpetration were school safety (r = .13, 95% CI: .16 to .10), empa-
thy (r = .12, 95% CI: .14 to .09), school climate (r = .12, 95%
CI = .14 to .10), parental monitoring (r = .07, 95% CI: .13 to
.03), and perceived support (r = .04, 95% CI = .06 to .02).
Risk factors for cybervictimization were anger (r = .20, 95% CI:
.16.23), risky online behavior (r = .18, 95% CI: .14.21), frequency of
Internet use (r = .17, 95% CI: .11.22), moral disengagement (r = .15,
95% CI: .11.18), and hyperactivity (r = .11, 95% CI: .09.13). Protective
factors against cybervictimization were school safety (r = .22, 95% CI:
.24 to .19), school climate (r = .14, 95% CI: .14 to .19), social in-
telligence (r = .08, 95% CI: .15 to .02), perceived support (r =
.08, 95% CI: .11 to .06), and parental monitoring (r = .06, 95% CI:
.10 to .20).
Involvement in bullying and socioeconomic status was studied by
Tippett and Wolke (2014) including 28 articles. Victimization was pos-
itively related to low (OR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.361.71) and negatively re-
lated to high socioeconomic status (OR = .73, 95% CI: .63.86) with
small effect sizes. Similar results were found for perpetration and low
socioeconomic status (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.021.27) and high socioeco-
nomic status (OR = .89, 95% CI: .83.95). A bullyvictim status was only
positively related to low socioeconomic status (OR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.22
2.39). Some of these associations became much weaker when adjusted
for publication bias.
Positive and negative parenting has also been studied in relation to
bullying and cyberbullying. Lereya et al. (2013) found that victimization
(including bullying and cybervictimization) was related to having less
parental involvement and support (g = .22; 95% CI: .29 to .15),
less warmth and affection (g = .22; 95% CI: .30 to .14), less au-
thoritative parents (g = .19, 95% CI: .28 to .11), less supervision
(g = .16, 95% CI: .21 to .12), worse parentchild communication
(g = .12; 95% CI: .20 to .05), and less positive parenting in general
(g = .19; 95% CI: .23 to .15). On the other hand, victimization was
also related to more negative parenting in general (g = .26, 95% CI:
.16.36), with more abuse and neglect (g = .31, 95% CI: .18.44), mal-
adaptive parenting (g = .27, 95% CI: .15.40) and overprotection
(g = .10, 95% CI: .03.17). A similar pattern was found in bully/victims,
with less positive parenting in general (g = .33, 95% CI: .41 to
.26), less warmth and affection (g = .42, 95% CI: .54 to .31),
less authoritative parents (g = .39, 95% CI: .61 to .18), less su-
pervision (g = .34, 95% CI: .54 to .14), parental involvement
and support (g = .30, 95% CI: .40 to .20), and worse parent
child communication (g = .17, 95% CI: .30 to .04). Overall neg-
ative parenting was also more common in bully/victims (g = .48,
95% CI: .26.70), with more abuse and neglect (g = .68, 95% CI:
.44.92) and maladaptive parenting (g = .49, 95% CI: .23.75). For vic-
tims, communication levels were lower when assessment was conduct-
ed through peer-nomination, warmth and affection were lower for older
children, and supervision was lower in Europe when compared to
other continents. For bully/victims, involvement and support were
lower when assessments were conducted through self-reports,
warmth and affection were lower outside Europe and America, in
older children and studies using self-reports and overall negative
parenting and maladaptive parenting were observed outside
Europe and America.
Some meta-analyses were performed only on longitudinal studies
with the objective of nding variables which predict bullying and vic-
timization over time. Reijntjes and colleagues found in a meta-analysis
including 18 studies that internalizing problems predict victimization
over time (Reijntjes et al., 2011) with very small effect size (r = .08,
95% CI: .04.21). Studies using SEM and the same informant yielded
larger effect sizes. Moreover, in another meta-analysis with 14 articles
(Reijntjes et al., 2011), it was found that externalizing problems predict
victimization over time, also with small effect size (r = .13, 95% CI:
.04.21) with no moderators.
3.4.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews
A non-meta-analytic systematic review conducted by van Noorden
et al. (2015) found that, according to the majority of the 40 included
studies, victimization was related to cognitive but not affective empa-
thy, perpetration was negatively related to cognitive and affective em-
pathy, defending the victim was positively related to both cognitive
and affective empathy and mixed results were found for bystanding.
A review of observational studies showed that, according to the ma-
jority of the 31 included articles, risk factors for bullying can be found
among school-related variables such as inequalities in income, poverty,
lack of anti-bullying norms, decient classroom management and
teacher support and also to neighborhood-related variables such as
inequalities in income and violence in the city or country. Findings
on school and classroom size were inconsistent (Machado Azeredo et
al., 2015).
Perren et al. (2012) reviewed strategies for tackling cyberbullying
nding that most of the studies focus on strategies themselves without
evaluating their actual success. Narrative results show that parental
supervision and behavior seem to be useful for prevention while
confronting perpetrators, technical solutions such as blocking, seeking
support from friends, and ignoring the problem are informed by youth
with the objective of combating the problem or buffering its effects.
Seeking support from teachers and parents was less common.
Although not specically focused on risk and protective factors, two
systematic reviews reported parents' (Harcourt et al., 2014), students',
and teachers' (O'Brien, 2009) understanding of bullying. Parents de-
mand more information on bullying and have difculty in recognizing
the phenomenon, suggesting improvement of school response
Harcourt et al. (2014)). A systematic review conducted in the UK
shows that teachers dene bullying in a broader way when compared
to students and that denitions employed by secondary students and
teachers include different components of the phenomenon such as di-
rect bullying, social exclusion, repetition, power imbalance, intentional-
ity, etc. O'Brien (2009)).
3.5. Consequences of bullying and cyberbullying
3.5.1. Meta-analytic results
Table 4 shows consequences of bullying and cyberbullying with
small, medium, and large effect sizes.
Kowalski et al. (2014) reported the outcomes of cyberbullying
perpetration (ordered by effect sizes) such as drug and alcohol use
(r = .27, 95% CI: .22.31), anxiety (r = .16, 95% CI: .07.25), depression
(r = .15, 95% CI: .11.19), life satisfaction (r = .11, 95% CI: .14 to
.08), self-esteem (r = .10, 95% CI: .13 to .07), loneliness (r =
.09, 95% CI: .04.13), and academic achievement (r = .09, 95% CI:
.18 to .01). Cybervictimization was related to stress (r = .34,
95% CI: .29.38), suicidal ideation (r = .27, 95% CI = .24.31),
depression (r = .24, 95% CI: .21.27), self-esteem (r = .17, 95%
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121 15

Table 4
Outcomes of bullying and cyberbullying.

Small effect sizes Medium effect sizes Large effect sizes

r = .10.24, OR = 1.50 to 2.49 r = .25.39, OR = 2.504.29 r N .40 or OR N4 .30

Bullying perpetration
Holt et al. (2015): Holt et al. (2015):
- Suicidal ideation (+) - Suicidal behavior (+)
Van Geel et al. (2014b): Tto et al. (2011b):
- Weapon carrying (+) - Offending later in life (+)
Tto et al. (2012):
- Violence later in life (+)
Tto, Farrington, Lsel, Crago, and Theodorakis (in press):
- Drug use (+)

Bullying victimization
Nakamoto and Schwartz (2009): Hawker and Boulton (2000) with shared Hawker and Boulton (2000) with
- Academic achievement () method variance: shared method variance:
Gini and Pozzoli (2013): - General self-esteem () - Depression (+)
- Psychosomatic problems (+) - Social-esteem ()
Gini, Pozzoli, Lenzi, et al. (2014): - Loneliness (+)
- Headache (+) - Generalized and social anxiety (+)
van Geel et al. (in press): Holt et al. (2015); van Geel et al. (2014c):
- Sleeping problems (+) - Suicidal behavior (+)
Van Dam et al. (2012):
- Psychotic symptoms (+)
Holt et al. (2015); van Geel et al. (2014c):
- Suicidal ideation (+)
Van Geel et al. (2014b):
- Weapon carrying (+)
Reijntjes et al. (2010)
- Internalizing problems over time (+)
- Externalizing problems over time (+)
Tto et al. (2011a):
- Depression (+)
Cunningham et al. (2015):
- Psychotic symptoms later in life

Bully-Victim
Holt et al. (2015): Van Geel et al. (2014b):
- Suicidal behavior (+) - Weapon carrying (+)
- Suicidal ideation (+)

Cyber-perpetration
Kowalski et al. (2014): Kowalski et al. (2014):
- Anxiety (+), - Drug and alcohol use (+)
- Depression (+),
- Life satisfaction (),
- Self-esteem (),

Cybervictimization
Kowalski et al. (2014): Kowalski et al. (2014):
- Depression (+), - Stress (+),
- Self-esteem (), - Suicidal ideation (+)
- Anxiety (+),
- Loneliness (+),
- Life satisfaction (),
- Conduct problems (+),
- Somatic symptoms (+),
- Emotional problems (+),
- Drug and alcohol use (+)

Note: (+) = positive effect, () = negative effect.

CI: .21 to .13), anxiety (r = .24, 95% CI: .18.31), loneliness (r =
.24, 95% CI: .15.33), life satisfaction (r = .21, 95% CI: .28 to
.14), conduct problems (r = .19, 95% CI: .18.21), somatic symptoms
(r = .19, 95% CI: .15.23), emotional problems (r = .18, 95% CI:
.16.20), drug and alcohol use (r = .15, 95% CI: .08.21), and
prosocial behaviors (r = .05, 95% CI: .06 to .03). Relationships
between cybervictimization with loneliness, and self-esteem and be-
tween cyberbullying with self-esteem were larger in North American
samples. Relationship between cyberbullying and depression was
smaller when traditional bullying or victimization was measured in
the same study. Relationship between cybervictimization and de-
pression was larger for females.
Nakamoto and Schwartz (2009) included 33 studies in their analysis
and found rather weak negative relationship between peer
victimization and academic achievement (r = .12, 95% CI: .15 to
.09). Effect sizes were smaller for self-reports and larger for peer re-
ports and multiple informants. Effects were also larger for the studies
reporting school records instead of self-reported grades, studies with
shared method variance and research in Asia. No differences between
girls and boys were found.
Gini and Pozzoli (2013) conducted a meta-analysis with 30 studies
separating the results for longitudinal and correlational research. It
was found that psychosomatic problems are more common in victims
of bullying in longitudinal (OR = 2.39, 95% CI: 1.763.24) and also
cross-sectional studies (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.912.46). In the cross-
sectional studies, effect size was smaller for research with more females.
A meta-analysis conducted with 20 articles focused specically on
headache Gini, Pozzoli, Lenzi et al. (2014) found a positive relationship
16 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
with being bullied across longitudinal (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.193.71)
and cross-sectional studies (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.702.35). Also, in
this study, effect size was smaller for research with more females in
cross-sectional design.
Sleeping problems related to victimization were analyzed by van
Geel et al. (in press) including 21 articles. Results show that victims
are more affected by these problems than non-victimized children
(OR = 2.21; 95% CI: 2.012.44) with larger effect for younger children.
A meta-analysis including 14 articles (van Dam et al., 2012) found that
victimization was related to psychotic symptoms in general population
(OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.53.4). Stronger relationship was found for in-
creased duration, frequency, and severity of bullying.
Psychosocial maladjustment was studied by Hawker and Boulton
(2000) in a meta-analysis including 23 studies. Peer victimization was
signicantly related to depression (r = .45 with shared method vari-
ance and r = .29 with no shared method variance), general self-
esteem (r = .39 with shared method variance and r = .21 with no
shared method variance), social-esteem (r = .35 with shared method
variance and r = .23 with no shared method variance), loneliness
(r = .32 with shared method variance and r = .25 with no shared
method variance), and generalized and social anxiety (r = .25 with
shared method variance and r = .19 with no shared method variance).
Condence intervals were not reported.
Suicidal behavior and ideation were commonly studied variables.
Holt et al. (2015) found that victimization was related to suicidal idea-
tion (OR = 2.34; 95% CI: 2.032.69) and behavior (OR = 2.94; 95% CI:
2.363.67). Perpetration was also related to suicidal ideation (OR =
2.12; 95% CI: 1.672.69) and behavior (OR = 2.62; 95% CI: 1.514.55).
Relationships between being a bully/victim and suicidal ideation
(OR = 3.81; 95% CI: 2.136.80) or behavior (OR = 4.02; 95% CI: 2.39
6.76) were between moderate and strong. Studies conducted in the
USA had larger effects for perpetration with suicidal ideation and
bully/victim status with suicidal behavior. For the bully/victim status,
studies with denitional and non-behavioral evaluation found larger
effects. Van Geel, et al. (2014c) included 36 studies nding that victim-
ization was related to suicidal ideation (adjusted OR = 2.18, 95% CI:
2.052.32) with stronger effect for cyberbullying than for traditional
bullying and no other signicant moderators. Peer victimization was
also related to suicidal attempts (OR = 2.55; 95% CI: 1.953.34) with
no signicant moderators and no separate analysis for traditional vs.
cyberbullying due to the low number of studies.
Relationship between involvement in bullying and weapon carrying
was studied in a meta-analysis conducted on 25 articles by van Geel,
Vedder, and Tanilon (2014b). Victimization and perpetration were re-
lated to weapon carrying (adjusted OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.602.36 and
adjusted OR = 2.30; 95% CI: 1.902.77, respectively). No signicant
moderators were found for victimization and stronger effect size was
found for perpetration in studies with higher response rate (above
75%). No differences were found between the U.S. studies and research
from other countries for victims and perpetrators. Large effect sizes
were found between being a bully/victim and weapon carrying
(OR = 4.95; 95% CI: 3.776.50) larger for the studies conducted in the
U.S. in comparison to other countries.
Some meta-analyses were conducted with longitudinal studies to
nd long-term outcomes of bullying and victimization. Among them,
Reijntjes et al. (2010) found that victimization signicantly predicts in-
ternalizing problems over time (r = .18, 95% CI = .12.24) with larger
effects for studies that used SEM and the same informant. On the
other hand, Reijntjes et al. (2011) found that victimization signicant-
ly predicts externalizing problems over time (r = .14, 95% CI:
.09.19) with no moderator effects. Tto et al. (2012) performed a
meta-analysis including 28 studies nding that perpetration predict-
ed violence later in life (adjusted OR = 2.04; 95% CI: 1.692.45). The ef-
fect size was negatively related to the age of perpetration assessment
(younger age of perpetration was related to more violence), the age of
outcome assessment (later assessments were related to less violence)
and the length of follow-ups (longer follow-ups were related to less vi-
olence). Victimization was also a predictor of later violence, although
with smaller effect size (adjusted OR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.251.62) and
no moderators were signicant. Tto et al. (in press) also found that
perpetration predicts drug use later in life (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.60
3.07) in a meta-analysis of 18 studies, with other factors such as child-
hood individual or school risks explaining much variation (adjusted
OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.201.66). Victimization, on the other hand, does
not predict later drug use (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95% CI: .941.11).
Tto et al. (2011a) also found in a meta-analysis of 28 articles that vic-
timization predicts depression later in life (adjusted OR = 1.99; 95% CI:
1.712.32). Younger age of victimization was related to more depres-
sion, later assessments and longer follow-ups were related to less de-
pression. Another study, also with 28 articles (Tto et al., 2011b),
found that perpetration predicted offending later in life (adjusted
OR = 2.50; 95% CI: 2.033.08). Effects were stronger for perpetration
in older children and weaker with long follow-ups and later outcome
measures. A meta-analysis conducted on 10 prospective studies by
Cunningham et al. (2015) showed that bullying was related to psychot-
ic symptoms later in life (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.144.04) with no report-
ed moderators.
3.5.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews
Different non-meta-analytic systematic reviews examined in-
volvement in bullying or cyberbullying as perpetrators, victims, or
bully/victims is related to suicidal ideation and behavior. Kim and
Leventhal (2008) found that most of the studies report elevated
risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in perpetrators, victims, and
bully/victims. Klomek, Sourander, and Gould (2010) found that
most of the cross-sectional studies report increased risk of suicidal
ideation and behavior in perpetrators and victims, stronger for fe-
males than males. Moreover, longitudinal studies are still scarce,
but their results suggest similar pattern. Narrative results reported
by Shireen et al. (2014) also suggest that involvement in bullying is
related to suicide and that this relationship is stronger for females.
Another systematic review shows that ve out of seven included
studies showed that victimization is related to alcohol misuse in adoles-
cents (Topper & Conrod, in press). Narrative results informed by
Tokunaga (2010) suggest that cyberbullying victimization is related to
low academic achievement, psychosocial and affective problems. A sys-
tematic review of studies on school shooting (Sommer et al., 2014)
shows that 29.9% of the shooters reported physical victimization,
whereas this kind of victimization was explicitly excluded in 31.2%.
More than a half (53.7%) report peer rejection (explicitly excluded in
14.9%) and about one out of eight (13.4%) report bullying perpetration.
A systematic review conducted by Tto et al. (2014) on prospective
longitudinal studies shows that the progression from bullying to inter-
nalizing and externalizing problems can be interrupted by factors such
as high school achievement, social skills, strong family attachment and
structure, social support and prosocial friends.
3.6. Effectiveness of anti-bullying programs
3.6.1. Meta-analytic results
Meta-analyses on effectiveness of anti-bullying programs show in-
consistent ndings. A study conducted by Farrington and Tto (2009),
including 89 empirical reports, found that, overall, programs are effec-
tive in reducing perpetration (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.181.42) and victim-
ization (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.181.42). For perpetration, effects were
larger for older children (11 and above), outcome measures applied
two or more times per month, studies published before 2003 and Nor-
wegian reports. For victimization, effects were larger for outcome mea-
sures applied two or more times per month, studies in Norway, outside
the US/Canada, studies in Europe, randomized experiments and before-
after/intervention control designs and for older children (11 or above
compared between studies). Ferguson et al. (2007) meta-analyzed 45
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
articles and also found that the programs produced positive results on
bullying outcome (without separating victimization and perpetration)
with small effect size (r = .12, 95% CI: .08.17). At-risk status moderated
the effect with more impact for higher-risk participants and there no
moderator effect of grade level (elementary, middle, or high school)
and outcome measure. Lee et al. (2015) focused on victimization as a
primary outcome including 13 studies also nding a small overall effect
size (d = .15, 95% CI: .10.20) with larger effect for secondary students
in comparison to elementary pupils (d = .32 vs. .14). Merrell et al.
(2008) report 28 effect sizes on different variables related to bullying,
among which, small effect sizes were found on self-reported positive at-
titudes toward bullying (d = .15), victimization (d = .27), witnessing
bullying (d = .35) and intervention to stop it (d = .17). Teacher reports
showed small effects on witnessed students being bullied (d = .16),
staff response (d = .30) and attitudes about school safety (d = .16)
and large effects on knowledge on bullying prevention (d = 1.52) and
intervention skills (d = .99). Peer reports showed small effect on partic-
ipation in bullying (d = .32). No condence intervals were reported.
Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott (2012) studied the effectiveness of anti-
bullying programs on bystander intervention including 12 articles.
Again, the results show small positive effect on bystander intervention
(g = .20, 95% CI: .11.29), greater in high school in comparison to pri-
mary schools and greater when facilitators were other than teachers.
A three-level meta-analysis using within-study analysis on 19 empirical
articles (Yeager et al., in press) show that effectiveness of anti-bullying
programs declines in older students with small effect in grades 17
(d = .13), in grades 8+ the programs were ineffective (d = .01), and
there was a signicant decline in grades 7th to 12th (b = .06, Z =
2.40, p = .016).
3.6.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews
A non-meta-analytic systematic review reported by Baldry and
Farrington (2007) found that among 16 programs, a half were effective
in reducing bullying in 10% or more, 2 had mixed results, 4 had small or
negligible effects (less than 10%), and 2 had iatrogenic results (an in-
crease of 10% or more). Narrative results described by Cantone et al.
(2015) led to conclude that most of the programs are effective in the
short term but, due to the short follow-up periods, no conclusion can
be drawn on the long-term effects. Evans, Fraser, and Cotter (2014)
found that 50% of the included studies were effective in reducing
perpetration and 67% were effective in reducing victimization. Ac-
cording to the results found by Goodman et al. (2013) reviewing
anti-bullying interventions in elementary and middle schools, 7 out of
8 programs reduced bullying. Smith et al. (2004), on the other hand,
found that none of the 14 reviewed studies effects were large, only 7%
were medium whereas 93% of the effects on victimization and 92% ef-
fects on perpetration were small or trivial. Considering only the best ef-
fect of each intervention, 67% showed small (the rest trivial) effects on
victimization and 33% showed small (the rest trivial) effects on
perpetration.
3.7. Effectiveness of different program components
3.7.1. Meta-analytic results
Farrington and Tto (2009) compared the effectiveness of different
program components. For victimization, larger effect sizes were found
for programs that did not include work with peers (OR = 1.39 vs.
1.13), that used disciplinary methods (OR = 1.44 vs. 1.21), with parent
training and meetings (OR = 1.41 vs. 1.20), duration for teachers of
4 days or more (OR = 1.41 vs. 1.18), with videos (OR = 1.38 vs. 1.17),
cooperative group work (OR = 1.38 vs. 1.20), duration for children of
270 days or more (OR = 1.35 vs. 1.15), intensity for children of 20 h
or more (OR = 1.42 vs. 1.21) and intensity for teachers of 10 h or
more (OR = 1.37 vs. 1.22). For perpetration, larger effect sizes were re-
ported for programs including parent training/meetings (OR = 1.57 vs.
1.25), with playground supervision (OR = 1.53 vs. 1.29), intensity for
17
children of 20 h or more (OR = 1.62 vs. 1.25), intensity for teachers of
10 h or more (OR = 1.52 vs. 1.19), duration for children of 270 days
or more (OR = 1.49 vs. 1.17), with disciplinary methods (OR = 1.59
vs. 1.31), duration for teachers of 4 or more days (OR = 1.50 vs. 1.22),
with classroom management (OR = 1.44 vs. 1.15), teacher training
(OR = 1.46 vs. 1.24), classroom rules (OR = 1.44 vs. 1.15), whole-
school policy (OR = 1.44 vs. 1.19), school conferences (OR = 1.49 vs.
1.30), a total number of 11 or more elements (OR = 1.48 vs. 1.30),
based on Olweus (OR = 1.50 vs. 1.31), with information for parents
(OR = 1.44 vs. 1.21) and cooperative group work (OR = 1.48 vs. 1.31).
For victimization, Lee et al. (2015) found larger effect sizes for ele-
ments such as emotional control training (d = .46 vs. .13), peer counsel-
ing (d = .33 vs. .13), with a school policy against bullying (d = .31 vs.
.12).
3.7.2. Additional information from non-meta-analytic systematic reviews
Narrative results of the non-meta-analytic systematic review con-
ducted by Cantone et al. (2015) suggest that whole-school interven-
tions are the most effective. Systematically monitored programs are
more effective in comparison to those without monitoring (Smith
et al., 2004). Vreeman and Carroll (2007) found that, among curriculum
studies, 4 out of 10 decreased bullying, 7 out of 10 whole-school inter-
ventions yielded desirable results, none of the 3 social skills trainings
was effective and the programs with increased presence of social
workers (1) and mentoring (1) reduced bullying.
3.8. Evaluation strategies and methodologies: Non-meta-analytic
systematic reviews
Evans et al. (2014) reviewed studies on anti-bullying programs and
found that, out of 22 evaluations of perpetration, 6 used only one item
and 16 used multi-item assessment. Similarly, out of 27 evaluations of
victimization, 6 used one-item and 21 multi-item assessments. Among
the studies with one-item assessment 67% showed signicant desirable
results on perpetration and 83% on victimization whereas among the
multi-item scales, 44% reported signicant results on perpetration and
57% on victimization.
Ryan and Smith (2009) reviewed evaluation practices used in anti-
bullying programs. This systematic review found that, in relation to pro-
gram monitoring, integrity promotion (providing manuals, training,
and supervising facilitators) was reported in 30 out of 31 programs
(64.5% manuals, 80.1% training, and 22.6% supervision; 16.1% included
all three forms) and integrity verication (verifying if the intervention
was provided as intended) was not reported in 38.7% of the programs
(35.5% reported adherence to manuals, 22.6% frequency and length of
implementation activities, 22.6% quality of delivery, 19.3% participation
and enthusiasm of the sample, 6.4% a check that only planned interven-
tion was delivered). In relation to study design, it was found that 22
studies were controlled and 9 uncontrolled, with two thirds reporting
no follow-up, and among the reported follow-ups, 25.8% were shorter
than 6 months, 29% 611 months, 25.8% 1223 months, and 19.3%
2 years or more. Less than 20% included qualitative components. Out
of 31 studies, 30 reported evaluation of involvement in bullying
(22.6% reported measures of involvement in perpetration/victimization
together with other related behaviors and non-behavioral constructs,
48% reported measures of two out of three of these variables and 29%
used only one). Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire in its modied ver-
sion was used in 35.5% of the studies; 45.2% reported reliability and
54.8% some evidence of validity. One informant was included in 54.8%
and two informants in 38.7%. All the studies reported some descriptive
statistics but only 35.5% reported effect sizes and only 5 out of 31 mul-
tilevel statistical techniques. None of the studies met all the assumption
of randomized controlled trials or all the criteria for efcacy, effective-
ness, or dissemination study. Another systematic review with no overall
data and narrative results for each included study also concludes that
18 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
there is a great variability in research methodologies utilized in anti-
bullying interventions (Chalamandaris & Piette, 2015).
Vessey et al. (2014) reviewed psychometric properties of self-report
instruments used to assess bullying. These authors found that 26% of
these instruments report testretest reliability, 90% present internal
consistency (with most of the Cronbach's alphas above .70), and 26%
with itemtotal correlations. Content validity, but without describing
detailed procedure, was reported in 48% of the articles. Information re-
lated to oor and ceiling effects was almost completely unavailable, fac-
torial validity was reported in 65% of the studies and construct validity
was present in all the studies. Administration length was informed in
35% of the studies, invariance among groups in 29% and time needed
for scoring was never reported.
Berne et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review on instruments
utilized for cyberbullying evaluation. The authors found that the con-
cept of cyberbullying was included in 21 of the 44 instruments, and
cybervictimization in 24 of the 44 instruments. Denitions of these con-
cepts varied across the studies. The most commonly included devices
were mobile phones (24 of the 44 instruments), and e-mail (21 of the
44). Conrmatory factor analysis was conducted for 12 of the 44
instruments and 13 had only theoretically based factors. Almost all the
instruments were self-reports (41 of the 44). Internal consistency
was reported for 18 out of the 44 (no other reliability was tested) and
the only form of tested validity was convergent (24 out of the 44
instruments).
Vivolo-Kantor et al. (2014) systematically reviewed bullying and
cyberbullying assessment strategies nding that 31.7% used the term
bullying, 26.8% provided a denition of the phenomenon (including
different components). Self-reports only were used in 75.6% of the
studies, 12.2% utilized peer-nomination only, and 4.9% included both.
Dichotomous response scales were present in 26.8% and scale/index in
80.5%. Timeframes for measuring the phenomena were unknown in
41.4% and 70.8% included both perpetration and victimization. Scoring
strategies consisting in summed total scores were reported in 51.2% of
the instruments. All the studies reported validity or reliability but with
different statistics (e.g. 90.2% included Cronbach's alpha, 26.8% test
retest reliability and 2.4% split-half reliability).
In relation to these ndings, it is worth mentioning that narrative re-
sults reported by Hong and Espelage (2012) suggest that mixed method
research with qualitative and quantitative methodologies could provide
new insights but its use is very uncommon. Qualitative research is usu-
ally naturalistic and focuses mostly on explicating the experiences of
children involved in bullying from their own perspective (Patton et al.,
in press).
4. Conclusions and introduction to the Special Issue
Findings of the current systematic review show that about one out of
three children are involved in some forms of bullying (Modecki et al.,
2014) and at least 1 out of 57 children are involved in cyberbullying
(Hamm et al., 2015; Modecki et al., 2014; Tokunaga, 2010). Reviewed
studies also show that there is an overlap between bullying and
cyberbullying, nding strong relationships between the two (Kowalski
et al., 2014; Modecki et al., 2014). Analysis of sex and age differences
yielded inconsistent results with trivial effect sizes for both variables
(Barlett & Coyne, 2014, Cook et al., 2010, Kowalski et al., 2014) and
one small effect showing more traditional bullying perpetration in
boys (Cook et al., 2010). These ndings do not necessarily indicate
that age and sex of the students are not important. On the other hand,
it seems that these relationships are complex and difcult to describe
with simple analyses. Relationship with age might be curvilinear as sug-
gested by Tokunaga (2010) and more meta-analyses could be helpful in
nding sex differences focusing also on type (e.g. direct or indirect) or
severity of bullying.
The current study shows that some minorities suffer from more vic-
timization in comparison to the majority group (Albdour & Krouse,
2014; Fedewa & Ahn, 2011; van Geel, Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014a), but
being a member of a minority group does not necessarily lead to more
victimization (Vitoroulis & Vaillancourt, 2015). Thus, specic interven-
tions should be designed to prevent bullying against the vulnerable
groups. It is worth mentioning that ndings from a systematic review
(Rose et al., 2011) suggest that this situation improves in inclusive con-
texts with more diversity. Although more studies are needed, these
ndings should be taken into account when designing programs to pre-
vent discriminatory bullying.
Individual and contextual risk and protective factors are related to
bullying and cyberbullying. Given the fact that most of the studies are
correlational, it is difcult to draw conclusions on causality of these re-
lationships. Nevertheless, even without being able to establish causality,
knowledge on these relationships provides valuable insights for under-
standing and reducing the phenomena. Taking into account the stron-
gest risk and protective factors (with medium to large effect sizes),
traditional bullying perpetration is related to externalizing behavior,
other related cognition, peer inuence (Cook et al., 2010), and moral
disengagement (Gini, Pozzoli and Hymel, 2014). Risk and protective
factors for traditional victimization are internalizing problems, social
competence, and peer status whereas bully/victim status is related to
peer inuence, externalizing behavior, social competence, self-related
cognitions, academic performance, school climate, and peer status
(Cook et al., 2010). Cyberbullying perpetration is related to moral disen-
gagement (Gini, Pozzoli and Hymel, 2014), cybervictimization and nor-
mative beliefs about aggression (Kowalski et al., 2014). No risk and
protective factors with medium or large effects for cybervictimization
were found and the largest effect sizes (although still small) were
observed for anger, risky online behavior, and frequent Internet use
(Kowalski et al., 2014).
Children who are involved in bullying and cyberbullying suffer from
devastating consequences found in reviews of cross-sectional and also
prospective longitudinal studies. Once again, no causality could be
established and variables were classied as risk/protective factors or
outcomes according to the original classication of each study. It is
worth mentioning that variables can be risk/protective factors and out-
comes at the same time as reported by Reijntjes et al. (2011, 2010)). Ac-
cording to the results of two meta-analyses published by these authors,
there is a vicious circle in which externalizing and internalizing prob-
lems are predictors of victimization over time and, on the other hand,
victimization predicts internalizing and externalizing problems over
time. In relation to consequences, taking into account only variables
with medium to large effect sizes, traditional bullying perpetration is re-
lated to suicidal behavior (Holt et al., 2015) and offending later in life
(Tto et al., 2011b). Traditional victimization relates to depression,
lower general self- and social-esteem, loneliness, generalized and social
anxiety (Holt et al., 2015) together with suicidal behavior (Holt et al.,
2015, van Geel, Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014c). Bully/victim status is related
to suicidal behavior and ideation (Holt et al., 2015) and weapon carry-
ing (van Geel et al., 2014b). Cyberbullying perpetration is associated
with drug and alcohol use and cybervictimization with stress and sui-
cidal ideation (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Bullying and cyberbullying are prevalent, a lot of information has
been gathered in relation to their individual and contextual risk and
protective factors and the consequences are devastating for all the stu-
dents involved in the phenomena. Thus, it is not surprising that dozens
of anti-bullying interventions have been conducted all over the world
and different meta-analyses and systematic reviews synthesized re-
search on the topic.
The current systematic review shows that programs might be effec-
tive in reducing bullying and victimization and that some programs and
components work better than others. Unfortunately, the impact of these
programs is small and methodologies and evaluations are frequently
decient. A previous review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
conducted by Tto et al. (2014) including six reports (namely Baldry
& Farrington, 2007; Farrington & Tto, 2009; Ferguson et al., 2007;
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
Merrell et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007) analyze
differences and similarity among these studies. Big differences were
found in numbers of searches and sources, timelines, languages, inclu-
sion/exclusion criteria and their actual application, including other re-
lated variables together with bullying and different methodological
approach. Taking into account all these criteria, it seems that the
meta-analyses conducted by Farrington and Tto (2009) would yield
the most exact results. Even though the impact of the programs is limit-
ed, these authors report a decrease in bullying perpetration of about
2023% and victimization of about 1720%. Taking into account the
devastating consequences of bullying reported in the results of the cur-
rent review, it seems crucial to conduct these interventions which,
given these percentages, could stop this kind of violence for one out of
ve children involved in the phenomenon. Nevertheless, methodologies
and evaluations of these programs should be improved and it is
currently difcult to draw conclusions on overall effectiveness of these
interventions (Ryan & Smith, 2009).
All the review studies which analyzed research methodologies re-
port that they are frequently decient with psychometric properties of
the instruments that could be improved when evaluating bullying
(Vessey et al., 2014) and cyberbullying (Berne et al., 2013). This issue
might be crucial when evaluating the effectiveness of anti-bullying
and research in the eld in general.
Although the current review provides an overview of the state of art
in relation to bullying and cyberbullying, some limitations should be
taken into account when interpreting its results. The number of the
systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic is still scarce and,
therefore, new studies would make it possible to obtain a more exact
and broad analysis. A half of the articles included in this study perform
systematic reviews without meta-analyses and, in case of the latter;
many effect sizes are small. Thus, future reviews of review studies
could also evaluate the quality of each document in relation to their re-
sults and conclusions. Moreover, given the fact that causality cannot be
established in most of the studies, results on risk/protective factors and
consequences are only an approximation, showing correlations.
Taking into account the ndings described in a previous review on
the state of art in relation to bullying and cyberbullying (Zych, Ortega-
Ruiz, & Del Rey, 2015) and also the current study, further advancement
in the eld is needed. Given the potential of review studies to set ten-
dencies in research, this Special Issue includes thirteen review articles
on bullying, cyberbullying, and youth violence. These articles answer
to the needs identied in the current and recent reviews.
Since the previous review identied that researchers' attention have
been mostly focused on Northern Europe and Northern America, this
Special Issue includes an article written by Sittichai and Smith (2015)
on bullying in South-East Asian Countries and also another article
authored by Chan and Wong (2015) focused on Chinese societies.
Given that no interventions against cyberbullying were found among
the most highly cited articles (Zych et al., 2015), Cross et al. (2015) de-
scribe a holistic framework for the intervention in cyberbullying and an
example of a program conducted within this framework. Cioppa, O'Neil,
and Craig (2015) conduct a systematic review of cyberbullying
intervention programs. Taking into account that the current study
showed the necessity of conducting further research on effectiveness
of anti-bullying programs and their methodologies, Nocentini,
Zambuto, and Menesini (2015) systematically review anti-bullying
programs in virtual environment. In relation to the devastating
consequences of cyberbullying also found in this study, Raskauskas
and Huynh (2015) systematically review coping strategies used by
victims of cyberbullying hoping to identify pathways to resilience,
Baldry, Farrington, andSorrentino (2015) systematically review
cyberbullying and cybervictimization risk factors using an ecological
framework and lvarez-Garca, Garca, and Nez (2015) also conduct
a systematic review from an ecological perspective but applied to
bullying perpetration in adolescence. Valdebenito, Tto, and Eisner
(2015) report the results of a systematic review and a meta-analysis
19
of studies on drug use among victims and perpetrators of bullying.
Once again, taking into account the importance of individual and also
contextual factors reported in this article, an integration of different
models and factors inuencing bullying and bystanding can be found
in the article authored by Ettekal, Kochenderfer-Ladd, and Ladd
(2015). Theoretical and empirical research on relational aggression is
reviewed by Voulgaridou and Kokkinos (2015). Patchin and Hinduja
(2015) contribute to knowledge on research methodology and assess-
ment of cyberbullying, a crucial issue also reported in the current
study. To sum up, the current Special Issue builds on the previous nd-
ings and set tendencies for future research on the topic.
References1
*Albdour, M., & Krouse, H.J. (2014). Bullying and victimization among African American
adolescents: A literature review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing,
27, 6882.
lvarez-Garca, D., Garca, T., & Nez, J.C. (2015). Predictors of school bullying perpetra-
tion in adolescence: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23,
126136.
*Antoniadou, N., & Kokkinos, C.M. (2015). A review of research on cyber-bullying in
Greece. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 20, 185201.
*Baldry, A.C., & Farrington, D.P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bully-
ing. Victims and Offenders, 2, 183204.
Baldry, A.C., Farrington, D., & Sorrentino, A. (2015). Am I at risk of cyberbullying? A nar-
rative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and
cybervictimization: The risk and needs assessment approach. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, 3651.
*Barlett, C., & Coyne, S.M. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying be-
havior: The moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 474488.
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: a bibliometric analysis
based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329 (in press).
*Berne, S., Frisn, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., et al.
(2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 18, 320334.
*Bottino, S.M., Bottino, C.M., Regina, C.G., Correia, A.V., & Ribeiro, W.S. (2015).
Cyberbullying and adolescent mental health: Systematic review. Cadernos de Sade
Pblica, 31, 463475.
*Cantone, E., Piras, A.P., Vellante, M., Preti, A., Danelsdttir, S., D'Aloja, E., et al. (2015). In-
terventions on bullying and cyberbullying in schools: A systematic review. Clinical
Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11, 5876.
*Chalamandaris, A.G., & Piette, D. (2015). School-based anti-bullying interventions:
Systematic review of the methodology to assess their effectiveness. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 24, 131174.
Chan, H.C., & Wong, D.S.W. (2015). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying in Chi-
nese societies: Prevalence and a review of the whole-school intervention approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 98108.
*Collier, K.L., van Beusekom, G., Bos, H.M.W., & Sandfort, T.G.M. (2013). Sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression related peer victimization in adolescence: A system-
atic review of associated psychosocial and health outcomes. The Journal of Sex
Research, 50, 299317.
Cioppa, V.D., O'Neil, A., & Craig, W. (2015). Learning from traditional bullying interven-
tions: A review of research on cyberbullying and best practice. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 23, 6168.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavior sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Ac-
ademic Press.
*Cook, C.R., Williams, K.R., Guerra, N.G., Kim, T.E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying
and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School
Psychology Quarterly, 25, 6583.
Cooper, H. (2009). Research synthesis and meta-analysis, a step by step approach (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B.,
et al. (2009). A cross-national prole of bullying and victimization among adolescents
in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216224.
Cross, D., Barnes, A., Papageorgiou, A., Hadwen, K., Hearn, L., & Lester, L. (2015). A social-
ecological framework for understanding and reducing cyberbullying behaviors.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 109117.
*Cunningham, T., Hoy, K., & Shannon, C. (2015). Does childhood bullying lead to the
development of psychotic symptoms? A meta-analysis and review of prospective
studies. Psychosis: Psychological, Social and Integrative Approaches. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17522439.2015.1053969 (in press).
Ettekal, I., Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G.W. (2015). A synthesis of person- and
relational-level factors that inuence bullying and bystanding behaviors: Toward
an integrative framework. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 7586.
*Evans, C.B.R., Fraser, M.V., & Cotter, K.L. (2014). The effectiveness of school-based bully-
ing prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19,
532544.
1
Articles with asterisks were included in the current systematic review.
20 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
*Farrington, D.P., & Tto, M.M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and vic-
timization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6.
Fandrem, H., Strohmeier, D., & Roland, E. (2009). Bullying and victimization among native
and immigrant adolescents in Norway the role of proactive and reactive aggressive-
ness. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 898923.
Farrington, D.P., Losel, F., Tto, M.M., & Theodorakis, N. (2012). School bullying, depression
and offending behaviour later in life: An updated systematic review of longitudinal stud-
ies. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
Farrington, D.P., Losel, F.A., & Tto, M.M. (2016). Developmental and social prevention. In
D. Weisburd, D.P. Farrington, & C. Gill (Eds.), What Works in Crime Prevention and Re-
habilitation: Lessons from Systematic Reviews. New York: Springer (in press).
*Fedewa, A.L., & Ahn, S. (2011). The effects of bullying and peer victimization on sexual-
minority and heterosexual youths: A quantitative meta-analysis of the literature.
Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 398418.
*Ferguson, C.J., Miguel, C.S., Kilburn, J.C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-
based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32,
401414.
*Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems:
A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 10591065.
*Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-
analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 720729.
*Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., & Hymel, S. (2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth:
A meta-analytic review of links to aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 5668.
*Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Lenzi, M., & Vieno, A. (2014). Bullying victimization at school and
headache: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Headache, 54, 976986.
*Goodman, J., Medaris, J., Verity, K., & Hott, B. (2013). A synthesis of international school-
based bullying interventions. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2, 118.
*Hadjikakou, K., & Papas, P. (2012). Bullying and cyberbullying and deaf and hard of hear-
ing children: a review of the literature. International Journal on Mental Health and
Deafness, 2, 1832.
*Hamm, M.P., Newton, A.S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., et al. (2015).
Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people a scoping re-
view of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 770777.
*Harcourt, S., Jasperse, M., & Green, V.A. (2014). We were sad and we were angry: a system-
atic review of parents' perspectives on bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43, 373391.
*Hawker, D.S.J., & Boulton, M.J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and
psychosocial maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441455.
*Holt, M.K., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Polanin, J.R., Holland, K.M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J.L., et al.
(2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1864 (in press).
*Hong, J.S., & Espelage, D.L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and
peer victimization in school. Educational Review, 64, 115126.
*Hong, J.S., Lee, C.H., Lee, J., Lee, N.Y., & Garbarino, J. (2014). A review of bullying preven-
tion and intervention in South Korean schools: An application of the socialecological
framework. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 45, 433442.
Jimnez Barbero, J.A., Ruiz Hernndez, J.A., Llor Esteban, B., & Prez Garca, M. (2012). Ef-
fectiveness of antibullying school programmes: A systematic review by evidence
levels. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 16461658.
Johnson, B.T., & Eagly, A.H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research.
In H.T. Reis, & C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality
psychology (pp. 496528). London: Cambridge University Press.
Juvoven, J., & Gross, E.F. (2008). Bullying experiences in cyberspace. The Journal of School
Health, 78, 496505.
*Kim, Y.S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of
Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 133154.
*Klomek, A.B., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying
in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal re-
search ndings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 282288.
*Kowalski, R.M., Giumetti, G.W., Schroeder, A.N., & Lattanner, M.R. (2014). Bullying in the
digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among
youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 10731137.
*Lee, S., Kim, C.J., & Kim, D.H. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effect of school-based anti-
bullying programs. Journal of Child Health Care, 19, 136153.
*Lereya, S.T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming
a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37,
10911108.
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, J., & Graves, N. (2011). Childhood bullying: A review of constructs, concepts, and
nursing implications. Public Health Nursing, 28, 556568.
*Machado Azeredo, C., Madalena Rinaldi, A.E., Leite de Moraes, C., Bertazzi Levy, R., & Rossi
Menezes, P. (2015). School bullying: A systematic review of contextual-level risk fac-
tors in observational studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 22, 6576.
*Merrell, K.W., Gueldner, B.A., Ross, S.W., & Isava, D.M. (2008). How effective are school
bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School
Psychology Quarterly, 23, 2642.
*Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behav-
ior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 6172.
Mishna, F., Cook, C., Saini, M., Wu, M. -J., & MacFadden, R. (2009). Interventions for children,
youth, and parents to prevent and reduce cyber abuse. Campbell Systematic Reviews.
*Modecki, K.L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A.G., Guerra, N.G., & Runions, K.C. (2014). Bullying
prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bully-
ing. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 602611.
Murray, J., Farrington, D.P., & Eisner, M.P. (2009). Drawing conclusions about causes from
systematic reviews of risk factors: the Cambridge quality checklists. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 5, 123.
Nielsen, M.B., Tangenc, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S.B., & Magery, N. (2015). Post-traumatic
stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review
and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 1724.
Nocentini, A., Zambuto, V., & Menesini, E. (2015). Anti-bullying programs and Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs): A systematic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, 5260.
*Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2009). Is peer victimization associated with academic
achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221242.
*O'Brien, N. (2009). Secondary school teachers' and pupils' denitions of bullying in the
UK: A systematic review. Evidence & Policy, 5, 399427.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: development and some important challenges. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751780.
Ortega, R. (2010). Agresividad Injusticada, Bullying y Violencia Escolar. Madrid: Alianza
Editorial.
Patchin, J.W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Measuring cyberbullying: Implications for research.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 6974.
*Patton, D.U., Hong, J.S., Patel, S., & Kral, M.J. (2015). A systematic review of research strat-
egies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse (in press).
*Perren, S., Corcoran, L., Cowie, H., Dehue, F., Garcia, D., Mc Guckin, C., et al. (2012). Tack-
ling cyberbullying: review of empirical evidence regarding successful responses by
students, parents, and schools. International Journal of Conict and Violence, 6,
283293.
*Polanin, J.R., Espelage, D.L., & Pigott, T.D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bully-
ing prevention programs' effects on bystander intervention behavior. School
Psychology Review, 41, 4765.
Raskauskas, J., & Huynh, A. (2015). The process of coping with cyberbullying: a systematic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 118125.
Rodrguez-Hidalgo, A.J., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Zych, I. (2014). Peer victimization and ethnic-
cultural peer victimization: self-esteem and school relations between different cul-
tural groups of students in Andalusia, Spain. Revista de Psicodidctica, 19, 191210.
*Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J.H., Prinzie, P., Boelen, P.A., van der Schoot, M., & Telch, M.J.
(2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems
in children: a meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 215222.
*Reijntjes, A., Kamphuisb, J.H., Prinziea, P., & Telch, M.J. (2010). Peer victimization and in-
ternalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 34, 244252.
*Rose, C.A., Monda-Amaya, L.E., & Espelage, D.L. (2011). Bullying perpetration and victim-
ization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education,
32, 114130.
*Ryan, W., & Smith, J.D. (2009). Antibullying programs in schools: How effective are eval-
uation practices? Prevention Science, 10, 248259.
Salgado, F.S., Senra, L.X., & Loureno, L.M. (2014). Effectiveness indicators of bullying in-
tervention programs: A systematic review of the international literature. Estudos de
Psicologia, 31, 179190.
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: prevalence and relationship to
gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735747.
Sittichai, R., & Smith, P.K. (2015). Bullying in south-east Asian countries: A review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 2235.
Slonje, R., Smith, P.K., & Frisen, A. (2013). The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for
prevention. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2632.
Smith, P.K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research.
Aggressive Behavior, 26, 19.
*Shireen, F., Janapana, H., Rehmatullah, S., Temuri, H., & Azim, F. (2014). Trauma experi-
ence of youngsters and teens: A key issue in suicidal behavior among victims of bul-
lying? Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 30, 206210.
*Smith, J.D., Schneider, B., Smith, P.K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-
school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology
Review, 33, 548561.
*Sommer, F., Leuschner, V., & Scheithauer, H. (2014). Bullying, romantic rejection, and
conicts with teachers: The crucial role of social dynamics in the development of
school shootingsA systematic review. International Journal of Developmental
Science, 8, 324.
Teelken, C., & Lomas, L. (2009). How to strike the right balance between quality assurance
and quality control in the perceptions of individual lecturers: a comparison of UK and
Dutch higher education institutions. Tertiary Education and Management, 15,
259275.
*Tippett, N., & Wolke, D. (2014). Socioeconomic status and bullying: A meta-analysis.
American Journal of Public Health, 104, 4859.
*Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277287.
*Topper, L., & Conrod, P.J. (2011). A review of the association between alcohol misuse and
bullying victimization in adolescence. Mind & Brain, the Journal of Psychiatry (in
press).
Tto, M.M., Eisner, M., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2014). Bullying prevention: Assessing existing
meta-evaluations. In G. Bruinsma, & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of criminology
and criminal justice (pp. 231242). Springer: New York.
Tto, M.M., Farrington, D.P., & Baldry, A.C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce
school bullying: A systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Crime Preven-
tion, Information and publications.
*Tto, M.M., & Farrington, D.P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
7, 2756.
*Tto, M.M., Bowes, L., Farrington, D.P., & Lsel, F. (2014). Protective factors interrupting the
continuity from school bullying to later internalizing and externalizing problems: A sys-
tematic review of prospective longitudinal studies. Journal of School Violence, 13, 538.
 I. Zych et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 121
*Tto, M.M., Farrington, D.P., Lsel, F., Crago, R.V., & Theodorakis, N. (2015). School bully-
ing and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology
Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000120 (in press).
*Tto, M.M., Farrington, D.P., & Lsel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence
later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal stud-
ies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 405418.
*Tto, M.M., Farrington, D.P., Lsel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011a). Do the victims of school
bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conict and Peace Research, 3,
6373.
*Tto, M.M., Farrington, D.P., Lsel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011b). The predictive efciency of
school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitu-
dinal studies. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 8089.
*Vessey, J., Strout, T.D., DiFazio, R.L., & Walker, A. (2014). Measuring the youth bullying
experience: A systematic review of the psychometric properties of available instru-
ments. Journal of School Health, 84, 819843.
Valdebenito, S., Tto, M., & Eisner, M. (2015). Prevalence rates of drug use among school
bullies and victims: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 137146.
*van Dam, D.S., van der Ven, E., Velthorst, E., Selten, J.P., Morgan, C., & de Haan, L. (2012).
Childhood bullying and the association with psychosis in non-clinical and clinical
samples: a review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 42, 24632474.
*van Geel, M., Goemans, A., & Vedder, P.H. (2015). The relation between peer victimiza-
tion and sleeping problems: A meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2015.05.004 (in press).
*van Noorden, T.H.J., Haselager, G.J.T., Cillessen, A.H.N., & Bukowski, W.M. (2015). Empa-
thy and involvement in bullying in children and adolescents: A systematic review.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 637-657.
21
*van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014a). Are overweight and obese youths more
often bullied by their peers? A meta-analysis on the relation between weight status
and bullying. International Journal of Obesity, 38, 1263-1267.
*van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014b). Bullying and weapon carrying: A meta-
analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 714-720.
*van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014c). Relationship between peer victimization,
cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pedi-
atrics, 168, 435-442.
*Vitoroulis, I., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Meta-analytic results of ethnic group differences
in peer victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 149170.
*Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Martell, B.N., Holland, K.M., & Westby, R. (2014). A systematic re-
view and content analysis of bullying and cyber-bullying measurement strategies.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 423434.
*Vreeman, R.C., & Carroll, A.E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions
to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 7888.
Voulgaridou, I., & Kokkinos, C.M. (2015). Relational aggression in adolescents: A review of
theoretical and empirical research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 8797.
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, J.K. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors and targets: A
comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45, 13081316.
*Yeager, D.S., Fong, C.J., Lee, H.Y., & Espelage, D.L. (2015). Declines in efcacy of anti-
bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
appdev.2014.11.005 (in press).
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Scientic research on bullying and
cyberbullying: Where have we been and where are we going. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 24, 188198.