no safe haven: locations of harassment and bullying victimization in middle schools

RE S E A R C H AR T I C L E

No Safe Haven: Locations of Harassmentand Bullying Victimization in Middle Schools*H. WESLEY PERKINS, PhDa JESSICA M. PERKINS, SMb DAVID W. CRAIG, PhDc

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: Given that adolescent bullying victimization is a significant concern for secondary education and adolescentdevelopment, identifying school contexts in which victimization is most likely to occur is salient.

METHODS: An anonymous online survey assessed the prevalence of being harassed or bullied in various locations within 20middle schools (grades 5-9) in New Jersey and New York (N = 10,668). Seven types of bullying-related victimization (teased inan unfriendly way, called hurtful names, physically abused, excluded from a group to hurt feelings, belongings taken/damaged,threatened to be hurt, and negative rumors spread) were examined in 7 locations where each type of victimization could occur(classroom, lunchroom, hallways, gym, playground, bus, or bathroom).

RESULTS: Prevalence of victimization types ranged from 4% to 38% depending on location. Prevalence of overall victimizationwas equal or greater in classrooms compared with other school locations (highest prevalence rates in hallways, classrooms, andlunchrooms), regardless of school demographic characteristics. Victimization in classrooms compared with other schoolsettings was most highly associated with feelings of being unsafe.

CONCLUSIONS: Vigilant attention to bullying is needed across all school environments and especially in the classroomcontext, which may mistakenly be perceived as a more protected area. Indeed, middle school classrooms are not safe havens.

Keywords: bullying; bullying locations; middle school; adolescents; victimization.

Citation: Perkins HW, Perkins JM, Craig DW. No safe haven: locations of harassment and bullying victimization in middleschools. J Sch Health. 2014; 84: 810-818.

Received on July 13, 2013Accepted on June 23, 2014

Increasing attention to bullying incidents, schoolshootings, and school climates1-3 has precipitated a

surge in research studies to establish the actual preva-lence of incidents,4-7 identify individual characteristicsof bullies, victims, and bystanders,8,9 explore socialfactors associated with bullying,10,11 and highlightcharacteristics of school features and school climatesassociated with bullying.12-14 Moreover, many studieshave identified the short-term and long-term neg-ative physical and mental health consequences ofbullying victimization for students.15-17 Less well-studied are the locations where victims of bullying andharassment by students occur in school environments.Studies with data collected before 2000 tend to indi-cate that bullying generally took place in unstructuredspaces.18-20 Among primary school students, bully-ing mainly occurred in the playground, whereas older

aProfessor of Sociology, ([email protected]), Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Hobart and WilliamSmith Colleges, 300 Pulteney St., Geneva, NY 14456.bPhD Candidate, ([email protected]), Department of Health Policy, Harvard University, 14 Story St., 4th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.cProfessor of Chemistry, [email protected], Department of Chemistry, Hobart and WilliamSmith Colleges, 300 Pulteney St., Geneva, NY 14456.

Address correspondence to: H. Wesley Perkins, Professor of Sociology, ([email protected]) Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Hobart and WilliamSmith Colleges, 300Pulteney St., Geneva, NY 14456.

*Indicates that continuing education hours are available. Visit www.ashaweb.org and click on Continuing Education for more information.

students reported an increasing prevalence of bullyingin classrooms and hallways.21-23 Across 23 primaryand secondary schools in Britain in 1992, bullyingin general occurred most often in the playground,especially among primary school students.24 Indirectbullying was more likely to occur in the classroom,however, than direct verbal or direct physical bullying.A report on youth bullying provided by the AmericanMedical Association indicated common bullying loca-tions included classrooms as well as the playground(for younger students), lunchroom, and hallways.25

More than a decade later, a study examining 3‘‘unstructured’’ venues for bullying behaviors among138 sixth graders in Georgia showed that bullyingevents took place most often in the cafeteria, followedby the locker room/hallway, and least often at schooldances.26 Moreover, the authors found that the

810 • Journal of School Health • December 2014, Vol. 84, No. 12 • © 2014, American School Health Association

number of adults present in each of the venues wasnot associated with prevalence of bullying behaviors.A qualitative study examining perceptions of bullyingamong Greek adolescents found that students firstreported bullying happening everywhere but addedthat it happens more often in unsupervised places.27

Finally, among a large cohort of Canadian youth ingrades 4-12, areas that were not well supervised byschool personnel were generally identified as unsafe.28

Specifically, this study showed that elementarystudents who experienced bullying emphasized theplayground and recess time as particularly dangerous,whereas high school students involved in bullyingnoted hallways, the cafeteria, and outside recess ashazardous. Similarly, results from a large study ofelementary to high school students in 1 district in theUnited States indicated substantial grade differences inreports of bullying locations in terms of both personalvictimization and perceptions of others’ victimizationexperiences.29

The lack of systematic and comprehensive informa-tion regarding (1) which types of bullying behaviorsoccur and in what school-related locations, and (2) towhat degree being victimized in certain locations isassociated with a student’s sense of safety or fear atschool present significant knowledge gaps in the youthbullying literature. Therefore, the current study seeksto address the following questions:

1. Within middle school contexts, where do harass-ment and bullying take place?

2. Do the prevalence, type, frequency of each type,and number of types of victimization vary bylocation?

3. How do students’ feelings of being unsafe at schoolvary with location of victimization?

METHODS

ParticipantsTwenty middle schools (19 located throughout the

state of New Jersey and 1 New York school locatednear the border with New Jersey) chose to participatein an anonymous online survey between 2006 and2008. The targeted study population was comprisedof all students enrolled in these middle schools; 1school was comprised of grades 5-6, 1 school hadgrades 5-8, 13 schools included grades 6-8, 4 schoolshad grades 7-8, and 1 school had grades 7-9. Middleschool populations ranged from small (N = 62) torelatively large (N = 1221) with the mean size of schoolpopulations being 643. The schools represented a widerange of communities in terms of affluence levels asreflected in the fact that between 1% and 81% oftheir students were on a free lunch program (23% ofthe overall participating population). The schools alsoranged considerably in the extent of racial diversity

with schools reporting 1% to 96% of their studentsas white (59% on average), 0% to 47% of studentsas black (20% on average), 1% to 75% as Hispanic(16% on average), and 0% to 41% as Asian (7% onaverage). The average student-teacher ratio among theschools was 11.4:1 and ranged from 8.1:1 to 18.1:1.

Among the 20 schools, 9 of them conducted thesurvey in multiple years so that a total of 35 schoolcohorts were surveyed between 2006 and 2008 and atotal of 10,668 surveys were obtained. Response ratesfrom the school cohorts ranged from 11% to 91% withan overall response rate of 52.2%. The data reportedin this study represent all of the participating schoolcohorts, although response rates in a few instanceswere low. However, we additionally conducted thesame analyses as reported in this article with onlyschool cohorts where response rates exceeded 50%(averaging 71% response) and also repeated theanalyses with only the most recent cohort fromparticipating schools if they participated more thanonce. In both instances, the same patterns of resultsemerged as reported using the full database, so wereport the results from all of the data here representingthe widest range of schools and cohorts.

Boys comprised 48% of the overall sample and girlscomprised 52%. The sample’s grade distribution was36% in grades 5 and 6, 32% in grade 7, and 32% ingrades 8 and 9; the overall mean age was 12.6 years.Fifty-two percent were attending a suburban school,38% were attending a school that drew students fromurban and suburban surroundings, and 10% wereattending a school in a rural setting. Sixty-one percentof the students in the overall sample were whites,12% were Asians, 8% were Hispanics/Latinos, 6%were blacks, 2% were American Indians or AlaskanNatives, and 11% indicated ‘‘other’’ for their racialidentity.

InstrumentData were collected using an anonymous online

‘‘Survey of Bullying at Your School’’ that covereda wide range of bullying-related topics and othersocial and demographic information. The survey wasconstructed by the authors in consultation with NewJersey Department of Education professional staff whovetted the survey content and gave special attentionto face validity of bullying victimization measures. Apreliminary paper version of the survey was pretestedwith focus groups of middle school students who wereasked to answer the survey noting any items whichwere unclear or difficult to read. Adjustments weremade in accordance with this student feedback. Theresulting instrument contained a total of 77 questionsspanning 4 virtual pages online.

Literature on aggression, victimization, harassment,and other forms of negative relationships among

Journal of School Health • December 2014, Vol. 84, No. 12 • © 2014, American School Health Association • 811

youth often refer to, or directly use, the concept ofbullying to describe behaviors and interactions. Thereare many differing usages of the term ‘‘bullying’’;some studies use the term ‘‘bullying’’ broadly andequate it with student harassment, whereas othersmore restrictively define it, often using the Olweusdefinition that involves repeated actions, purposefulintent of harm, and a power differential betweenperpetrator and victim.20 In the survey used for thisstudy, many of the questions ask about harassmentbehaviors that, although commonly associated withbullying and often done repeatedly, may not have fullymet the restrictive definition. We did ask about thesemeasures of harassment in the context of a surveybroadly examining the topic of bullying, and we alsoincluded some questions that specifically ask aboutstudents’ experiences of being ‘‘bullied’’ using thatterm. Hence, at least subjectively, the study inquires, inpart, about bullying victimization but also examines abroader set of harassment behaviors of which studentsmight be victims. Thus, this study ultimately focuses onthe prevalence of students’ harassment and bullyingvictimization experiences and the places in schoolwhere any victimization by peers might typically occur.

The survey was introduced with the followingsentences: ‘‘This is a survey about how students relateto each other. Sometimes students do things that maybe called bullying. We want you to tell us aboutyourself and what you think about other students.You will not be asked to give your name—this is ananonymous survey. Questions that ask about otherstudents are asking about students at your school.’’Several sets of questions from the survey were usedin the research reported here. Students were initiallyasked if they had ever done any of several possiblethings to get away from a bully at school including notgo to the bathroom, not go to lunch, pretend to besick and go home, avoid a class, avoid a hallway, oravoid some other place at school. Next, students wereasked how often they had personally skipped schoolthat year because they were afraid of other studentshurting or making fun of them (never, once, 2-3 times,or 4 or more times). They were also asked to indicatehow safe versus how threatened they felt at schoolon a 10-point scale from ‘‘very safe’’ (scored as 1) to‘‘very threatened’’ (scored as 10).

Students were subsequently asked to report ifthey had experienced any of 7 types of harassmentcommonly associated with bullying. Specifically,respondents were asked how often in the last 30 dayseach of the following things had happened to them:(1) pushing, shoving, hitting, kicking, hair pulling, ortripping; (2) teasing in an unfriendly way; (3) beingcalled hurtful names; (4) being excluded from agroup to hurt feelings; (5) belongings being takenor damaged; (6) unkind story or rumor spread; and(7) threatened to be hurt. The content of these

questions was based on instruments used in severalprevious studies to measure the prevalence of differenttypes of bullying and victimization behaviors.30-33

The response options were ‘‘not in the last 30 days,’’‘‘once,’’ ‘‘2-3 times,’’ and ‘‘4 or more times.’’ Studentswere then asked to indicate whether or not eachof these things had ever happened to them duringthe school year in 7 specific locations within theschool context. The places listed on the surveywere (1) playground, (2) lunchroom, (3) classroom,(4) gym, (5) hallways, (6) bathroom, and (7) bus. Anindex for each of the 7 contexts was subsequentlycreated by summing the total number of ways (0 to7) in which a student may have ever experiencedvictimization in that context during the school year.Strong internal reliability for each of the 7 indices(based on 7 types of victimization) was confirmedby computing Cronbach alpha for each index.Cronbach alpha ranged between 0.78 and 0.87 forthe 7 indices, thereby demonstrating high internalreliability for the number of ways victimized in eachcontext. Students were also asked to self-report theirsex, age, and race/ethnicity with choices includingAmerican Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, black/AfricanAmerican, Hispanic/Latino, white/Caucasian, andOther.

ProcedureFrom class sessions or other group assignments

in school, students who had parental consent wereinstructed to go in groups to rooms where a computerwas available for each student. Each group was givengeneral information about the online survey andtold that the survey was voluntary and anonymous.A student could leave any or all questions blankif they did not want to participate. No personalcomputing accounts were used. To access the survey,all students in a specific group session were publiclygiven the same password and URL address to assurestudents of their anonymity in completing the survey.However, the password was changed between sessionsso that no student could access the survey andsubmit multiple responses after leaving his or hersurvey session. There was a teacher or other adultmonitor present simply to make sure that studentsdid not speak with each other while taking thesurvey. The survey data were subsequently checkedto screen out submissions with intentionally providederroneous or random answers. The small numberof respondents who submitted multiple answersthat were clearly outside of possible ranges orwho answered sets of questions with contradictoryresponses was eliminated. The average time taken tocomplete the survey by middle school students in thisstudy was 13 minutes (SD = 4.4 minutes) with 95%of respondents completing this survey within a timerange of 7 to 24 minutes.


Figure 1. Victimization Types (Ways Harassed/Bullied) in Last 30 Days: (a) Prevalence of Type by Sex and (b) Frequency of Type

(b)

(a)

Data AnalysisPrevalence rates for overall victimization experi-

ences are reported along with prevalence of strategiesused to avoid being harassed or bullied. Prevalence andfrequency measures of victimization are also exam-ined by type, by location, and by sex. Prevalence ofeach type of victimization was also examined by loca-tion within specific school categories distinguished bypopulation size, student-teacher ratio, percent of thestudent body that was white versus minority, andthe percent of the school population that received afree school lunch. The mean number of ways bullied(number of different types of victimization) in eachschool context is also computed by sex and for all stu-dents and for victims only. Finally, linear regressionanalysis stratified by gender is employed to predictstudents’ feelings of being unsafe based on the num-ber of ways students had been harassed or bullied ineach school location and controlling for age, race, andschool-specific effects.

RESULTS

Many students in these middle schools reportedbeing the victim of behaviors that are commonlyassociated with bullying. In the last 30 days, almosttwo thirds of students (66%) had been the victim ofmultiple victimization incidents commonly associated

with bullying (combining all 7 types of victimization).Furthermore, during the current year, 25% hadskipped recess, had not gone to the bathroom orlunch, had pretended to be sick and went home, orhad avoided a class, hallway, or some other place atschool to get away from a bully. Eight percent reportedhaving skipped school at least once due to fear of othersduring the school year.

Figure 1 presents the prevalence and frequency ofreports of each type of victimization. Being teased orcalled hurtful names was experienced by half of allstudents (equally for boys and girls), and one fourthexperienced these actions by peers multiple times inthe last 30 days. Half of all boys and over 40% ofgirls reported being physically abused, and 20% of allstudents reported multiple incidents in the last 30 days.Over one fourth of both girls and boys had belongingstaken from them during that time period as well.

Figure 2 presents the prevalence of each type ofvictimization reported by students according to theplaces it occurred. Prevalence of victimization typesranged from 4% to 38% depending on location.This figure clearly demonstrates that no type ofvictimization occurs exclusively in any of the locationsof school life examined in this study. All types ofvictimization can be found in all locations, and thosetypes of victimization that are more prevalent ingeneral tend to be more prevalent across locations.


Figure 2. Prevalence of Victimization Types (Ways Harassed/Bullied) During the School Year by Location

The only notable variation from this pattern occursin regard to the prevalence of physical abuse whichis relatively less prevalent in the classroom comparedwith most other types of victimization and far moreprevalent than all other types in the school hallways.

Figure 3 uses the indices of total types of victim-ization (number of ways victimized) in each location.The first part of the figure reports the prevalence ofany victimization in each of the various school-relatedlocations. The second part shows the mean numberof ways victimized (from none to all 7 types ofvictimization) in each location and the mean numberof ways victimized in each location among only thosewho were victims in the specific location (ie, meanways victimized in a location among those who wereharassed or bullied in at least 1 way). Hallways arethe most problematic areas for girls and boys in termsof both the prevalence of any victimization and thenumber of ways that victimization is taking place inthis setting. Classrooms and lunchrooms follow closelybehind hallways as areas where much victimizationtakes place. Indeed, half of all girls and almost half ofboys note the classroom as problematic. Nonetheless,regardless of the particular school setting, amongthose who have been harassed or bullied in a specificlocation, they report being victims of multiple types ofharassment or bullying in each situation. Specifically,victims in each location reported having experiencedbetween 2 and 3 types of victimization, on average, inthat setting. Similar to Figure 3a, Figure 4 shows thatthe prevalence of victimization during the school yearis greatest in classrooms, hallways, and lunchrooms,

regardless of school characteristics examined. Specif-ically, schools were divided into 3 groups for eachcharacteristic examined including population size,student-teacher ratio, percent of the student body thatwas white versus minority, and the percent of theschool population that received a free school lunch.Thus, the pattern of pervasive victimization does notalter by these contextual factors with the exception ofsome notable variation for playground victimization.This exception might be explained by the extent andavailability of different playground spaces and facilitieswhere students spend more or less time.

As a final step, this research investigated predictorsof the degree to which students felt unsafe at schoolusing their responses to the 10-point scale from verysafe (1) to very threatened (10). The mean scorewas 2.11 (SD = 2.03). Although most students (86%)felt relatively safe (choosing between 1 and 5), 16%tended to feel mostly or very threatened (choosingbetween 6 and 10). Linear multiple regression analysisrevealed that students’ scores for this measure offeeling unsafe were predicted by the number of waysstudents were victimized that had occurred in eachschool location (Table 1). Age and race (white vsminority) were entered as simultaneous predictorsalong with dummy variables representing each schoolto control for school-specific effects. The analysis wasconducted separately for girls and boys. Among girls,being harassed or bullied in an increasing number ofways in the classroom, in hallways, and in the gymalong with increasing age predicted greater feelings ofbeing unsafe. Being harassed or bullied in other areas


Figure 3. Victimization During the School Year by Location: (a) Prevalence by Sex and (b) Mean Number of Ways Harassed/Bullied(All Students and Victims Only)

produced less concern about one’s safety. Similarly,being victimized in an increasing number of ways inthe classroom, in hallways, and in the gym were alsothe greatest causes of concern among boys. Unlike thepredictors for girls, being victimized on the bus wasalso statistically significant and age was not predictive.Comparing the size of the standardized coefficients,the number of ways victimized in the classroom wasthe strongest predictor of feeling unsafe and equally sofor girls and boys.

DISCUSSION

This study clearly shows that all types of harassmentand bullying victimization occur across both unstruc-tured and structured spaces within the school contextregardless of whether these locations are supervised.It suggests that, no matter where students or schoolpersonnel are located, many students not only experi-ence various types of victimization but are also likelyto witness incidents. It is of serious concern that themost dangerous areas in terms of both prevalence ofany victimization and the number of different waysthat it takes place—those being hallways, classrooms,and lunchrooms—represent the 3 areas where schools

often have (or at least are supposed to have) signifi-cant and constant monitoring procedures (classroomsand lunchrooms) or regulations (along with somemonitoring) about who can be in that space at anygiven time (hallways). This suggests that frequent bul-lying and victimization will occur even when thereis contextually authoritative oversight supposedly inplace. Perhaps, the types of harassment and bully-ing that occur more often in these school locationsare not as visually overt as other types that maybe observed in less monitored settings. Nonetheless,they may be equally or more important in reduc-ing students’ sense of safety and well-being whileat school.

LimitationsThis study is not without limitations. First, the

database represents only middle schools from the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. It, nonetheless,reflects a broad diversity of schools based onsocioeconomic conditions, type of location, andracial makeup. Second, the data are based onself-reported incidents of harassment and bullyingvictimization, which may introduce recall error andsome suppression of reporting negative experiences


Figure 4. Prevalence of Victimization During the School Year by Location Harassed/Bullied and by School Characteristics: (a) SchoolPopulation Size, (b) Student-Teacher Ratio, (c) Percent White, and (d) Percent Receiving Free Lunch

that may be uncomfortable to admit. The survey wasanonymous, however, and moreover, students wereprobably much less likely to refrain purposely fromtelling the truth about the locations in which theyhave been victimized than if they had been reportingon where they were bullying others. Third, the dataare cross-sectional in nature, and thus no causal effectcan be definitively established from the associationpresented in the predictive analysis here as thephenomena of victimization and personal fear may bespuriously correlated in some way or to some degree.It is, nevertheless, certainly much more plausible thatvictimization (and victimization in the classroom inparticular as noted) generates feelings of being unsaferather than presuming the opposite direction of effect.

Finally, it must be noted that this study is only abouttypes and extent of victimization occurring specificallyin various school-related physical locations. It doesnot include the hurtful use of electronic media or‘‘cyberbullying,’’ admittedly a large and growing areaof virtual landscape where students may be bullied andhave their well-being threatened during school hours,as well as at other times and in other places.34,35

ConclusionsAmid these limitations, the fundamental point of

this research remains—that bullying in school envi-ronments occurs in a wide variety of contexts—andnotably within the classroom as well as otherareas that are thought to be highly supervised. The


Table 1. Regression Coefficients Predicting Feeling Unsafe at School

Girls (N = 5394) Boys (N = 4885)

Independent Variables Unstandardized (SE) Standardized Unstandardized (SE) Standardized

Number of ways victimized in classroom 0.173 (0.021) 0.15*** 0.181 (0.024) 0.15***Number of ways victimized in lunchroom 0.006 (0.022) 0.01 −0.010 (0.025) −0.01Number of ways victimized in hallways 0.110 (0.021) 0.11*** 0.105 (0.025) 0.10***Number of ways victimized in gym 0.114 (0.027) 0.09*** 0.138 (0.029) 0.11***Number of ways victimized on bus 0.042 (0.021) 0.04* 0.082 (0.024) 0.07***Number of ways victimized on playground −0.052 (0.022) −0.04* 0.021 (0.023) 0.02Number of ways victimized in bathroom 0.035 (0.030) 0.02 0.005 (0.032) 0.00Age 0.144 (0.025) 0.08*** 0.042 (0.029) 0.02Race (white versus minority) −0.028 (0.053) −0.01 −0.147 (0.062) −0.03*

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.Dummy variables representing each school were also included in the regression analysis to control for school-specific effects.SE, standard error.

evidence demonstrates the pervasiveness of manytypes of victimization across places in which studentstend to spend time during the school day, not the leastof which being the classroom itself. These findingswere consistent for both girls and boys. The researchfurther suggests that the range and extent of bully-ing victimization that does occur in the classroom arelikely to be one of the most detrimental influencesupon students’ feelings of safety in school.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH

Overall, this article demonstrates the imperative forschools to increase their vigilance about bullying asthere appears to be no safe haven throughout theschool environment. Thus, a high priority should bethe implementation of programs with demonstratedeffectiveness in schools36-39 to reduce bullying,increase bystander intervention, and promote positivesocial environments. Indeed, the research clearlyillustrates the critical need for trying new approachesto reduce what appears to be an omnipresent problemthroughout the student’s school experience.40

Crucially, the potential for significant negativeeffects due to classroom bullying should not be ignored.Research commonly suggests that the experience ofbeing bullied in school produces students who aredisengaged from pursuing their education.41 Thisdisengagement may not simply come from theirexperiences of peer abuse somewhere on schoolproperty outside of the learning environment. Theacademic alienation produced by the experience ofbeing bullied may come much more directly inmany instances from what students experience in theclassroom than what has been commonly thought tobe the case. When bullying occurs in such a salientacademic space with an authority figure and peerswithin close range, it may be even more embarrassingand hurtful, making students feel even more unsafebecause it occurs in a place where students should leastcommonly expect to be bullied. This study suggests that

the mere presence of teachers in the classroom servingas authority figures does not provide the influencenecessary to lower the incidences of harassmentand bullying in that context compared with otherschool locations. Thus, it is of utmost importanceto address classroom harassment bullying along withsuch behaviors in less monitored contexts. Learningas well as healthy emotional development in generalmay be severely impaired by students’ fear of beingvictimized during class time and by their reluctance toattend class due to this fear of being unsafe.

This research also demonstrates the importanceof school personnel being vigilantly attentive to themany forms of bullying that may take place ineach location associated with student life rather thansimply focusing on a particular problem behaviorassumed to be most common in a specific schoolcontext. A number of resources for taking actionin schools have recently appeared. For example,Masiello and Schroeder42 provide a collection ofperspectives and suggestions for more aggressiveengagement of teachers and other school staff inaddressing the problem in school environments.Parents, teachers, and school administrators cannotassume that any location at school is a safe havenjust because it is presumed to be under professionalsupervision.

Human Subjects Approval StatementReview and approval of the survey instrument and

research procedures were provided by the InstitutionalReview Board at the first author’s institution.

REFERENCES

1. Dake JA, Price JH, Telljohann SK. The nature and extent ofbullying at school. J Sch Health. 2003;73(5):173-180.

2. Srabstein J. Deaths linked to bullying and hazing. Int J AdolescMed Health. 2008;20(2):235-239.

3. Elias MJ, Zins JE, eds. Bullying, Peer Harassment, and Victimizationin the Schools. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press; 2003.


4. Finkelhor D, Ormrod R, Turner H, Hamby SL. The victimizationof children and youth: a comprehensive, national survey. ChildMaltreat. 2005;10(1):5-25.

5. Carlyle KE, Steinman KJ. Demographic differences in theprevalence, co-occurrence, and correlates of adolescent bullyingat school. J Sch Health. 2007;77(9):623-629.

6. Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among US youth:prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment.JAMA. 2001;285(16):2094-2100.

7. Due P, Merlo J, Harel-Fisch Y, et al. Socioeconomic inequality inexposure to bullying during adolescence: a comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. Am J Public Health.2009;99(5):907-914.

8. Juvonen J, Graham S, Schuster MA. Bullying among youngadolescents: the strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics.2003;112(6 pt 1):1231-1237.

9. Unnever JD. Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: are theydistinct groups? Aggress Behav. 2005;31(2):153-171.

10. Shetgiri R, Lin H, Avila RM, Flores G. Parental characteristicsassociated with bullying perpetration in US children aged 10 to17 years. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):2280-2286.

11. Sentse M, Dijkstra JK, Salmivalli C, Cillessen AHN. Thedynamics of friendships and victimization in adolescence: alongitudinal social network perspective. Aggress Behav. 2013;39:229-238.

12. Ma X. Bullying in middle school: individual and schoolcharacteristics of victims and offenders. Sch Eff Sch Improv.2002;13(1):63-89.

13. Wilson D. The interface of school climate and school connected-ness and relationships with aggression and victimization. J SchHealth. 2004;74(7):293-299.

14. Blosnich J, Bossarte R. Low level violence in schools: isthere an association between school safety measures and peervictimization? J Sch Health. 2011;81(2):107-113.

15. Brunstein Klomek A, Marrocco F, Kleinman M, Schonfeld IS,Gould MS. Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents.J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;46(1):40-49.

16. Niemela S, Brunstein-Klomek A, Sillanmaki L, et al. Childhoodbullying behaviors at age eight and substance use at age 18among males: a nationwide prospective study. Addict Behav.2011;36(3):256-260.

17. Vernberg EM, Nelson TD, Fonagy P, Twemlow SW. Vic-timization, aggression, and visits to the school nurse forsomatic complaints, illnesses, and physical injuries. Pediatrics.2011;127(5):842-848.

18. Craig WM, Peplar D. Observations of bullying and victimizationin the school yard. Canad J Sch Pyschol. 1997;13(2):41-59.

19. Craig WM, Peplar D, Atlas R. Observations of bullying inthe playground and in the classroom. School Pyschol Int. 2000;21(1):22-36.

20. Olweus D. Bullying at School. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1993.21. Olweus D. Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic

facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In:Pepler D, Rubin K, eds. The Development and Treatment of ChildhoodAggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam; 1991:411-448.

22. Ahmad Y, Smith PK. Bullying in schools and the issue ofsex differences. In: Archer J, ed. Male Violence. London, UK:Routledge; 1993:70-83.

23. Whitney I, Smith PK. A survey of the nature and extentof bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Edu Res.1993;35:3-25.

24. Rivers I, Smith PK. Types of bullying behaviour and theircorrelates. Aggress Behav. 1994;20:359-368.

25. Fleming M, Towey K. Educational Forum on Adolescent Health:Youth Bullying. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association;2002.

26. Parault SJ, Davis HA, Pellegrini AD. The social context ofbullying and victimization. J Early Adolescence. 2007;27(2):145-174.

27. Athanasiades C, Deliyanni-Kouimtzis V. The experience ofbullying among secondary school students. Psychol Sch.2010;47(4):328-341.

28. Vaillancourt T, Brittain H, Bennett L, et al. Places to avoid:population-based study of student reports of unsafe and highbullying areas at school. Canad J Sch Pyschol. 2010;25(1):40-54.

29. Bradshaw CP, Sawyer AL. Bullying and peer victimization atschool: perceptual differences between students and school staff.School Pyschol Rev. 2007;36(3):22.

30. Solberg ME, Olweus D. Prevalence estimation of school bullyingwith the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggress Behav.2003;29:239-268.

31. Wang J, Iannotti RJ, Nansel TR. School bullying amongadolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relationaland cyber. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(4):368-375.

32. Roman GH, Taylor CJ. A multilevel assessment of schoolclimate, bullying victimization, and physical activity. J SchHealth. 2013;83(6):400-407.

33. Bosworth K, Espelage DL, Simon TR. Factors associated withbullying behaviors in middle schools. J Early Adolescence.1999;99(3):341-362.

34. Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Cyberbullying and self-esteem. J SchHealth. 2010;80(12):614-621.

35. Juvonen J, Gross EF. Extending the school grounds? Bullyingexperiences in cyberspace. J Sch Health. 2008;78(9):496-505.

36. Perkins HW, Craig DW, Perkins JM. Using social norms toreduce bullying: a research intervention among adolescents infive middle schools. Group Processes Intergr Relat. 2011;14(5):703-722.

37. Polanin JR, Espelage DL, Pigott TD. A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystanderintervention behavior. School Pyschol Rev. 2012;41(1):47-65.

38. Schroeder BA, Messina A, Schroeder D, et al. The implemen-tation of a statewide bullying prevention program: preliminaryfindings from the field and the importance of coalitions. HealthPromot Pract. 2011;14(4):489-495.

39. Patton GC, Bond L, Carlin JB, et al. Promoting social inclusionin schools: a group-randomized trial of effects on studenthealth risk behavior and well-being. Am J Public Health.2006;96(9):1582-1587.

40. Domino M. Measuring the impact of an alternative approach toschool bullying. J Sch Health. 2013;83(6):430-437.

41. Mehta SB, Cornell D, Fan X, Greogry A. Bullying climateand school engagement in ninth-grade students. J Sch Health.2013;83(1):45-52.

42. Masiello MG, Schroeder D, eds. A Public Health Approach toBullying Prevention. Washington, DC: American Public HealthAssociation; 2014.


no safe haven: locations of harassment and bullying victimization in middle schools

Documents