quantitative research about bullying in school

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2021

Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study

• Håkan Källmén 1 &
• Mats Hallgren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-2403 2  

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume  15 , Article number:  74 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

98k Accesses

13 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

To examine recent trends in bullying and mental health problems among adolescents and the association between them.

A questionnaire measuring mental health problems, bullying at school, socio-economic status, and the school environment was distributed to all secondary school students aged 15 (school-year 9) and 18 (school-year 11) in Stockholm during 2014, 2018, and 2020 (n = 32,722). Associations between bullying and mental health problems were assessed using logistic regression analyses adjusting for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors.

The prevalence of bullying remained stable and was highest among girls in year 9; range = 4.9% to 16.9%. Mental health problems increased; range = + 1.2% (year 9 boys) to + 4.6% (year 11 girls) and were consistently higher among girls (17.2% in year 11, 2020). In adjusted models, having been bullied was detrimentally associated with mental health (OR = 2.57 [2.24–2.96]). Reports of mental health problems were four times higher among boys who had been bullied compared to those not bullied. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.4 times higher.

Conclusions

Exposure to bullying at school was associated with higher odds of mental health problems. Boys appear to be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls.

Introduction

Bullying involves repeated hurtful actions between peers where an imbalance of power exists [ 1 ]. Arseneault et al. [ 2 ] conducted a review of the mental health consequences of bullying for children and adolescents and found that bullying is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm and suicidality. Bullying was shown to have detrimental effects that persist into late adolescence and contribute independently to mental health problems. Updated reviews have presented evidence indicating that bullying is causative of mental illness in many adolescents [ 3 , 4 ].

There are indications that mental health problems are increasing among adolescents in some Nordic countries. Hagquist et al. [ 5 ] examined trends in mental health among Scandinavian adolescents (n = 116, 531) aged 11–15 years between 1993 and 2014. Mental health problems were operationalized as difficulty concentrating, sleep disorders, headache, stomach pain, feeling tense, sad and/or dizzy. The study revealed increasing rates of adolescent mental health problems in all four counties (Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), with Sweden experiencing the sharpest increase among older adolescents, particularly girls. Worsening adolescent mental health has also been reported in the United Kingdom. A study of 28,100 school-aged adolescents in England found that two out of five young people scored above thresholds for emotional problems, conduct problems or hyperactivity [ 6 ]. Female gender, deprivation, high needs status (educational/social), ethnic background, and older age were all associated with higher odds of experiencing mental health difficulties.

Bullying is shown to increase the risk of poor mental health and may partly explain these detrimental changes. Le et al. [ 7 ] reported an inverse association between bullying and mental health among 11–16-year-olds in Vietnam. They also found that poor mental health can make some children and adolescents more vulnerable to bullying at school. Bayer et al. [ 8 ] examined links between bullying at school and mental health among 8–9-year-old children in Australia. Those who experienced bullying more than once a week had poorer mental health than children who experienced bullying less frequently. Friendships moderated this association, such that children with more friends experienced fewer mental health problems (protective effect). Hysing et al. [ 9 ] investigated the association between experiences of bullying (as a victim or perpetrator) and mental health, sleep disorders, and school performance among 16–19 year olds from Norway (n = 10,200). Participants were categorized as victims, bullies, or bully-victims (that is, victims who also bullied others). All three categories were associated with worse mental health, school performance, and sleeping difficulties. Those who had been bullied also reported more emotional problems, while those who bullied others reported more conduct disorders [ 9 ].

As most adolescents spend a considerable amount of time at school, the school environment has been a major focus of mental health research [ 10 , 11 ]. In a recent review, Saminathen et al. [ 12 ] concluded that school is a potential protective factor against mental health problems, as it provides a socially supportive context and prepares students for higher education and employment. However, it may also be the primary setting for protracted bullying and stress [ 13 ]. Another factor associated with adolescent mental health is parental socio-economic status (SES) [ 14 ]. A systematic review indicated that lower parental SES is associated with poorer adolescent mental health [ 15 ]. However, no previous studies have examined whether SES modifies or attenuates the association between bullying and mental health. Similarly, it remains unclear whether school related factors, such as school grades and the school environment, influence the relationship between bullying and mental health. This information could help to identify those adolescents most at risk of harm from bullying.

To address these issues, we investigated the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems among Swedish adolescents aged 15–18 years between 2014 and 2020 using a population-based school survey. We also examined associations between bullying at school and mental health problems adjusting for relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and school-related factors. We hypothesized that: (1) bullying and adolescent mental health problems have increased over time; (2) There is an association between bullying victimization and mental health, so that mental health problems are more prevalent among those who have been victims of bullying; and (3) that school-related factors would attenuate the association between bullying and mental health.

Participants

The Stockholm school survey is completed every other year by students in lower secondary school (year 9—compulsory) and upper secondary school (year 11). The survey is mandatory for public schools, but voluntary for private schools. The purpose of the survey is to help inform decision making by local authorities that will ultimately improve students’ wellbeing. The questions relate to life circumstances, including SES, schoolwork, bullying, drug use, health, and crime. Non-completers are those who were absent from school when the survey was completed (< 5%). Response rates vary from year to year but are typically around 75%. For the current study data were available for 2014, 2018 and 2020. In 2014; 5235 boys and 5761 girls responded, in 2018; 5017 boys and 5211 girls responded, and in 2020; 5633 boys and 5865 girls responded (total n = 32,722). Data for the exposure variable, bullied at school, were missing for 4159 students, leaving 28,563 participants in the crude model. The fully adjusted model (described below) included 15,985 participants. The mean age in grade 9 was 15.3 years (SD = 0.51) and in grade 11, 17.3 years (SD = 0.61). As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5). Details of the survey are available via a website [ 16 ], and are described in a previous paper [ 17 ].

Students completed the questionnaire during a school lesson, placed it in a sealed envelope and handed it to their teacher. Student were permitted the entire lesson (about 40 min) to complete the questionnaire and were informed that participation was voluntary (and that they were free to cancel their participation at any time without consequences). Students were also informed that the Origo Group was responsible for collection of the data on behalf of the City of Stockholm.

Study outcome

Mental health problems were assessed by using a modified version of the Psychosomatic Problem Scale [ 18 ] shown to be appropriate for children and adolescents and invariant across gender and years. The scale was later modified [ 19 ]. In the modified version, items about difficulty concentrating and feeling giddy were deleted and an item about ‘life being great to live’ was added. Seven different symptoms or problems, such as headaches, depression, feeling fear, stomach problems, difficulty sleeping, believing it’s great to live (coded negatively as seldom or rarely) and poor appetite were used. Students who responded (on a 5-point scale) that any of these problems typically occurs ‘at least once a week’ were considered as having indicators of a mental health problem. Cronbach alpha was 0.69 across the whole sample. Adding these problem areas, a total index was created from 0 to 7 mental health symptoms. Those who scored between 0 and 4 points on the total symptoms index were considered to have a low indication of mental health problems (coded as 0); those who scored between 5 and 7 symptoms were considered as likely having mental health problems (coded as 1).

Primary exposure

Experiences of bullying were measured by the following two questions: Have you felt bullied or harassed during the past school year? Have you been involved in bullying or harassing other students during this school year? Alternatives for the first question were: yes or no with several options describing how the bullying had taken place (if yes). Alternatives indicating emotional bullying were feelings of being mocked, ridiculed, socially excluded, or teased. Alternatives indicating physical bullying were being beaten, kicked, forced to do something against their will, robbed, or locked away somewhere. The response alternatives for the second question gave an estimation of how often the respondent had participated in bullying others (from once to several times a week). Combining the answers to these two questions, five different categories of bullying were identified: (1) never been bullied and never bully others; (2) victims of emotional (verbal) bullying who have never bullied others; (3) victims of physical bullying who have never bullied others; (4) victims of bullying who have also bullied others; and (5) perpetrators of bullying, but not victims. As the number of positive cases in the last three categories was low (range = 3–15 cases) bully categories 2–4 were combined into one primary exposure variable: ‘bullied at school’.

Assessment year was operationalized as the year when data was collected: 2014, 2018, and 2020. Age was operationalized as school grade 9 (15–16 years) or 11 (17–18 years). Gender was self-reported (boy or girl). The school situation To assess experiences of the school situation, students responded to 18 statements about well-being in school, participation in important school matters, perceptions of their teachers, and teaching quality. Responses were given on a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘fully agree’. To reduce the 18-items down to their essential factors, we performed a principal axis factor analysis. Results showed that the 18 statements formed five factors which, according to the Kaiser criterion (eigen values > 1) explained 56% of the covariance in the student’s experience of the school situation. The five factors identified were: (1) Participation in school; (2) Interesting and meaningful work; (3) Feeling well at school; (4) Structured school lessons; and (5) Praise for achievements. For each factor, an index was created that was dichotomised (poor versus good circumstance) using the median-split and dummy coded with ‘good circumstance’ as reference. A description of the items included in each factor is available as Additional file 1 . Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed with three questions about the education level of the student’s mother and father (dichotomized as university degree versus not), and the amount of spending money the student typically received for entertainment each month (> SEK 1000 [approximately $120] versus less). Higher parental education and more spending money were used as reference categories. School grades in Swedish, English, and mathematics were measured separately on a 7-point scale and dichotomized as high (grades A, B, and C) versus low (grades D, E, and F). High school grades were used as the reference category.

Statistical analyses

The prevalence of mental health problems and bullying at school are presented using descriptive statistics, stratified by survey year (2014, 2018, 2020), gender, and school year (9 versus 11). As noted, we reduced the 18-item questionnaire assessing school function down to five essential factors by conducting a principal axis factor analysis (see Additional file 1 ). We then calculated the association between bullying at school (defined above) and mental health problems using multivariable logistic regression. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis). To assess the contribution of SES and school-related factors to this association, three models are presented: Crude, Model 1 adjusted for demographic factors: age, gender, and assessment year; Model 2 adjusted for Model 1 plus SES (parental education and student spending money), and Model 3 adjusted for Model 2 plus school-related factors (school grades and the five factors identified in the principal factor analysis). These covariates were entered into the regression models in three blocks, where the final model represents the fully adjusted analyses. In all models, the category ‘not bullied at school’ was used as the reference. Pseudo R-square was calculated to estimate what proportion of the variance in mental health problems was explained by each model. Unlike the R-square statistic derived from linear regression, the Pseudo R-square statistic derived from logistic regression gives an indicator of the explained variance, as opposed to an exact estimate, and is considered informative in identifying the relative contribution of each model to the outcome [ 20 ]. All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.0.

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

Estimates of the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems across the 12 strata of data (3 years × 2 school grades × 2 genders) are shown in Table 1 . The prevalence of bullying at school increased minimally (< 1%) between 2014 and 2020, except among girls in grade 11 (2.5% increase). Mental health problems increased between 2014 and 2020 (range = 1.2% [boys in year 11] to 4.6% [girls in year 11]); were three to four times more prevalent among girls (range = 11.6% to 17.2%) compared to boys (range = 2.6% to 4.9%); and were more prevalent among older adolescents compared to younger adolescents (range = 1% to 3.1% higher). Pooling all data, reports of mental health problems were four times more prevalent among boys who had been victims of bullying compared to those who reported no experiences with bullying. The corresponding figure for girls was two and a half times as prevalent.

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

Table 2 shows the association between bullying at school and mental health problems after adjustment for relevant covariates. Demographic factors, including female gender (OR = 3.87; CI 3.48–4.29), older age (OR = 1.38, CI 1.26–1.50), and more recent assessment year (OR = 1.18, CI 1.13–1.25) were associated with higher odds of mental health problems. In Model 2, none of the included SES variables (parental education and student spending money) were associated with mental health problems. In Model 3 (fully adjusted), the following school-related factors were associated with higher odds of mental health problems: lower grades in Swedish (OR = 1.42, CI 1.22–1.67); uninteresting or meaningless schoolwork (OR = 2.44, CI 2.13–2.78); feeling unwell at school (OR = 1.64, CI 1.34–1.85); unstructured school lessons (OR = 1.31, CI = 1.16–1.47); and no praise for achievements (OR = 1.19, CI 1.06–1.34). After adjustment for all covariates, being bullied at school remained associated with higher odds of mental health problems (OR = 2.57; CI 2.24–2.96). Demographic and school-related factors explained 12% and 6% of the variance in mental health problems, respectively (Pseudo R-Square). The inclusion of socioeconomic factors did not alter the variance explained.

Our findings indicate that mental health problems increased among Swedish adolescents between 2014 and 2020, while the prevalence of bullying at school remained stable (< 1% increase), except among girls in year 11, where the prevalence increased by 2.5%. As previously reported [ 5 , 6 ], mental health problems were more common among girls and older adolescents. These findings align with previous studies showing that adolescents who are bullied at school are more likely to experience mental health problems compared to those who are not bullied [ 3 , 4 , 9 ]. This detrimental relationship was observed after adjustment for school-related factors shown to be associated with adolescent mental health [ 10 ].

A novel finding was that boys who had been bullied at school reported a four-times higher prevalence of mental health problems compared to non-bullied boys. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.5 times higher for those who were bullied compared to non-bullied girls, which could indicate that boys are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls. Alternatively, it may indicate that boys are (on average) bullied more frequently or more intensely than girls, leading to worse mental health. Social support could also play a role; adolescent girls often have stronger social networks than boys and could be more inclined to voice concerns about bullying to significant others, who in turn may offer supports which are protective [ 21 ]. Related studies partly confirm this speculative explanation. An Estonian study involving 2048 children and adolescents aged 10–16 years found that, compared to girls, boys who had been bullied were more likely to report severe distress, measured by poor mental health and feelings of hopelessness [ 22 ].

Other studies suggest that heritable traits, such as the tendency to internalize problems and having low self-esteem are associated with being a bully-victim [ 23 ]. Genetics are understood to explain a large proportion of bullying-related behaviors among adolescents. A study from the Netherlands involving 8215 primary school children found that genetics explained approximately 65% of the risk of being a bully-victim [ 24 ]. This proportion was similar for boys and girls. Higher than average body mass index (BMI) is another recognized risk factor [ 25 ]. A recent Australian trial involving 13 schools and 1087 students (mean age = 13 years) targeted adolescents with high-risk personality traits (hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, sensation seeking) to reduce bullying at school; both as victims and perpetrators [ 26 ]. There was no significant intervention effect for bullying victimization or perpetration in the total sample. In a secondary analysis, compared to the control schools, intervention school students showed greater reductions in victimization, suicidal ideation, and emotional symptoms. These findings potentially support targeting high-risk personality traits in bullying prevention [ 26 ].

The relative stability of bullying at school between 2014 and 2020 suggests that other factors may better explain the increase in mental health problems seen here. Many factors could be contributing to these changes, including the increasingly competitive labour market, higher demands for education, and the rapid expansion of social media [ 19 , 27 , 28 ]. A recent Swedish study involving 29,199 students aged between 11 and 16 years found that the effects of school stress on psychosomatic symptoms have become stronger over time (1993–2017) and have increased more among girls than among boys [ 10 ]. Research is needed examining possible gender differences in perceived school stress and how these differences moderate associations between bullying and mental health.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the current study include the large participant sample from diverse schools; public and private, theoretical and practical orientations. The survey included items measuring diverse aspects of the school environment; factors previously linked to adolescent mental health but rarely included as covariates in studies of bullying and mental health. Some limitations are also acknowledged. These data are cross-sectional which means that the direction of the associations cannot be determined. Moreover, all the variables measured were self-reported. Previous studies indicate that students tend to under-report bullying and mental health problems [ 29 ]; thus, our results may underestimate the prevalence of these behaviors.

In conclusion, consistent with our stated hypotheses, we observed an increase in self-reported mental health problems among Swedish adolescents, and a detrimental association between bullying at school and mental health problems. Although bullying at school does not appear to be the primary explanation for these changes, bullying was detrimentally associated with mental health after adjustment for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors, confirming our third hypothesis. The finding that boys are potentially more vulnerable than girls to the deleterious effects of bullying should be replicated in future studies, and the mechanisms investigated. Future studies should examine the longitudinal association between bullying and mental health, including which factors mediate/moderate this relationship. Epigenetic studies are also required to better understand the complex interaction between environmental and biological risk factors for adolescent mental health [ 24 ].

Availability of data and materials

Data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis; please email the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Olweus D. School bullying: development and some important challenges. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9(9):751–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L. The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore SE, Norman RE, Suetani S, Thomas HJ, Sly PD, Scott JG. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017;7(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 .

Hagquist C, Due P, Torsheim T, Valimaa R. Cross-country comparisons of trends in adolescent psychosomatic symptoms—a Rasch analysis of HBSC data from four Nordic countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1097-x .

Deighton J, Lereya ST, Casey P, Patalay P, Humphrey N, Wolpert M. Prevalence of mental health problems in schools: poverty and other risk factors among 28 000 adolescents in England. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(3):565–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.19 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Le HTH, Tran N, Campbell MA, Gatton ML, Nguyen HT, Dunne MP. Mental health problems both precede and follow bullying among adolescents and the effects differ by gender: a cross-lagged panel analysis of school-based longitudinal data in Vietnam. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0291-x .

Bayer JK, Mundy L, Stokes I, Hearps S, Allen N, Patton G. Bullying, mental health and friendship in Australian primary school children. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2018;23(4):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12261 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hysing M, Askeland KG, La Greca AM, Solberg ME, Breivik K, Sivertsen B. Bullying involvement in adolescence: implications for sleep, mental health, and academic outcomes. J Interpers Violence. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853409 .

Hogberg B, Strandh M, Hagquist C. Gender and secular trends in adolescent mental health over 24 years—the role of school-related stress. Soc Sci Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890 .

Kidger J, Araya R, Donovan J, Gunnell D. The effect of the school environment on the emotional health of adolescents: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):925–49. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2248 .

Saminathen MG, Låftman SB, Modin B. En fungerande skola för alla: skolmiljön som skyddsfaktor för ungas psykiska välbefinnande. [A functioning school for all: the school environment as a protective factor for young people’s mental well-being]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2020;97(5–6):804–16.

Google Scholar  

Bibou-Nakou I, Tsiantis J, Assimopoulos H, Chatzilambou P, Giannakopoulou D. School factors related to bullying: a qualitative study of early adolescent students. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012;15(2):125–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9179-1 .

Vukojevic M, Zovko A, Talic I, Tanovic M, Resic B, Vrdoljak I, Splavski B. Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children—literature review. Acta Clin Croat. 2017;56(4):742–8. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2017.56.04.23 .

Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;90:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026 .

Stockholm City. Stockholmsenkät (The Stockholm Student Survey). 2021. https://start.stockholm/aktuellt/nyheter/2020/09/presstraff-stockholmsenkaten-2020/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Zeebari Z, Lundin A, Dickman PW, Hallgren M. Are changes in alcohol consumption among swedish youth really occurring “in concert”? A new perspective using quantile regression. Alc Alcohol. 2017;52(4):487–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx020 .

Hagquist C. Psychometric properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems Scale: a Rasch analysis on adolescent data. Social Indicat Res. 2008;86(3):511–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9186-3 .

Hagquist C. Ungas psykiska hälsa i Sverige–komplexa trender och stora kunskapsluckor [Young people’s mental health in Sweden—complex trends and large knowledge gaps]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2013;90(5):671–83.

Wu W, West SG. Detecting misspecification in mean structures for growth curve models: performance of pseudo R(2)s and concordance correlation coefficients. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20(3):455–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797829 .

Holt MK, Espelage DL. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J Youth Adolscence. 2007;36(8):984–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 .

Mark L, Varnik A, Sisask M. Who suffers most from being involved in bullying-bully, victim, or bully-victim? J Sch Health. 2019;89(2):136–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12720 .

Tsaousis I. The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2016;31:186–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.005 .

Veldkamp SAM, Boomsma DI, de Zeeuw EL, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Bartels M, Dolan CV, van Bergen E. Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behav Genet. 2019;49(5):432–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09968-5 .

Janssen I, Craig WM, Boyce WF, Pickett W. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.5.1187 .

Kelly EV, Newton NC, Stapinski LA, Conrod PJ, Barrett EL, Champion KE, Teesson M. A novel approach to tackling bullying in schools: personality-targeted intervention for adolescent victims and bullies in Australia. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(4):508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.010 .

Gunnell D, Kidger J, Elvidge H. Adolescent mental health in crisis. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2608 .

O’Reilly M, Dogra N, Whiteman N, Hughes J, Eruyar S, Reilly P. Is social media bad for mental health and wellbeing? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;23:601–13.

Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Middle school victims of bullying: who reports being bullied? Aggr Behav. 2004;30(5):373–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20030 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Department for Social Affairs, Stockholm, for permission to use data from the Stockholm School Survey.

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Prevents Alcohol and Drug Problems (STAD), Center for Addiction Research and Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

Håkan Källmén

Epidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance Use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Level 6, Solnavägen 1e, Solna, Sweden

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HK conceived the study and analyzed the data (with input from MH). HK and MH interpreted the data and jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Källmén, H., Hallgren, M. Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 15 , 74 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Adolescents
• School-related factors
• Gender differences

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 November 2021

Bullying in schools: prevalence, bystanders’ reaction and associations with sex and relationships

• Temesgen Demissie Eijigu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-8844 1 &
• Seleshi Zeleke Teketel 2  

BMC Psychology volume  9 , Article number:  183 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9540 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Bullying and peer victimization are the most pressing social problems affecting the wellbeing of children and adolescents. This study attempts to estimate the prevalence and examine the association of bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying in East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Ethiopia.

This study followed an explanatory mixed-method study design. For the quantitative phase, 612 participants were selected using multistage cluster sampling techniques and for qualitative phase, 18 participants were selected using purposive sampling technique. We used self-reported questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to collect data from students attending grades 7, 8, 9, and 10.

This study revealed that 55% of bystanders remained passive while 38% of them defended the victim upon witnessing bullying incidents. Pearson Chi-Square test for independence indicated a significant association between bystanders’ relationship with the victim and/or bully, and bystanders’ reaction. In contrast, sex has no significant association with bystanders’ reaction. The semi-structured interview data also suggested that large number of bystanders most often stood by passively while some of them defended the victim.

The practice of defending among students attending their education in governmental primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone was low. Close social relationships (being close friends, relatives, and classmates) with the victim and bully were significantly associated with the practice of defending.

Peer Review reports

Bullying and peer victimization are the most pressing social problems affecting the wellbeing of children and adolescents [ 1 ]. Although bullying occurs in many contexts [ 2 ], it is predominantly prevalent within a school setting [ 3 , 4 ]. For instance, over 90% of primary and secondary school students in Australia witnessed verbal bullying, and more than 60% witnessed physical bullying in their schools [ 5 ]. Moreover, a study on the prevalence of being bullied in South Australian schools depicted that approximately one of every two secondary school students experienced victimization by peers while at school [ 3 ].

The problem of violence and bullying is also prevalent in Ethiopia [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. A study in Addis Ababa revealed that 84% of teachers and directors confirmed that violence is a problem in and around primary and secondary schools, mainly targeting girls and smaller children [ 7 ]. Similarly, a national study in Ethiopia revealed that 13.1% and 16.7% of children have been left out and hit by other children, respectively, in their class [ 10 ].

The situation of school bullying in the East Gojjam Zone does not seem an exception. For example, in the 2014 academic year, more than 57% of students in Menkorer High School at Debre Markos Town, the capital of East Gojjam Administrative Zone, experienced physical and sexual violence [ 11 ].

School bullying is viewed as a group phenomenon that, in addition to bullies and victims, involves a large number of bystanders who witness bullying [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. For instance, two studies in Canada illustrated that peer bystanders were present in more than five out of six bullying episodes [ 13 , 14 ]. Another natural observational research also reported that peers were present closely in nine out of ten bullying episodes [ 13 ]. Although bullying often occurs in the presence of large bystanders who have a high potential to reduce it, most do not intervene to stop it [ 13 , 14 ].

In bullying situations, bystanders may take the following four roles: (1) assistants, who join in the bully’s side (2) reinforcers, who encourage bullies (3) passive bystanders, who merely watch what is happening and (4) defenders, who stand up on behalf of victims [ 12 ]. Recent studies proposed three forms of bystander roles as passive bystanders, defenders, and pro-bully/bully supporters/by combining the roles of assistant and reinforcers [ 15 ].

A study in 1220 elementary school children from grades four to six found that low scores on the anti-bullying attitude scale were associated with bullying, assisting the bully, and reinforcing the bully. In contrast, high scores on that scale were related to defending the victim and remaining passive in bullying situations [ 16 ]. Since passive bystanders scored high in anti-bullying attitude and moral disapproval scores of bullying, it is easier to change them to the defenders than assistants and reinforcers. Thus, passive bystanders were the focus of this study. Besides, passive bystanders and defenders account for more than half of the bystanders who could play a key role in reducing bullying. To our knowledge, no previous studies in Ethiopia estimated the extent of defenders and passive bystanders during bullying in primary and general secondary school students. Thus, one of the focuses of this study was to estimate the extent of defending and passive bystanding behaviors during school bullying.

Empirical findings reported gender differences in defending and passive bystanding behavior [ 5 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Several studies revealed that girls are more involved in defending the victim [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] and remaining passive in bullying situations than boys, whereas boys were more involved in supporting bullies as assistants and reinforcers than girls [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 ]. In addition, some studies have shown a significant association between the gender of the bystander, the gender of the bully, and the victim [ 13 ]. Their findings suggest that boys are more likely to defend when the bully or victim is male, whereas girls are more likely to defend when the bully or victim is female. Likewise, some studies [ 24 , 25 ] documented that students were more likely to defend their same-sex peers than opposite-sex peers. This shows that previous studies emphasized sex differences and how bystanders are more likely to help the same sex victim [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. They did not answer the question, “To what extent do female and/or male bystanders defend or remain passive upon witnessing a girl victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a girl. Thus, further research is needed to fill these knowledge gaps.

Furthermore, bystanders’ relationships with the victim or bully may also influence defending or passive bystanding behavior [ 26 , 27 ]. These studies revealed that bystanders who had a close relationship with the victim are more likely to help the victim, whereas those who had a close relationship with the perpetrator and no relationship with the victim are more likely to remain passive; sometimes it may even initiate co-bullying [ 26 ]. The motives for co-bullying or non-intervention, were reported to come from fear of friendship loss, perceived peer pressure, or to not disprove the actions of friends.

In the culture of Amhara, when one's close relative or friend is attacked, he/she will not watch the incident passively. At least, he/she is expected to separate the bully and the victim. This strong social bond among Amhara society [ 28 ] makes it reasonable to include bystanders’ relationship with the bully and victim in the study.

Research question

This research planned to answer the following questions:

To what extent do students defend or remain passive during bullying incidents in primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone?

To what extent do male and female bystanders defend or remain passive upon witnessing a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, a girl victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a boy?

Does the relationship between the bystander and the victim or the bystander and the bully make a difference in the bystander’s reaction?

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and examine the association between bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying in East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Ethiopia.

Study design

This study followed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design [ 29 , 30 ] with quantitative data collection and analysis in the first phase and qualitative data collection and analysis in the second phase. Mixed methods design was selected to other designs since the complex nature of bystanding behaviors during school bullying requires an investigation from multiple ways.

The study was conducted in primary and general secondary schools from Aneded, Debre Markos, Enebesie Sar Medir, Enemay, and Machakel Woredas of East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. These five Woredas consists of 181 second cycle primary schools (Grades 5–8) and 19 secondary schools (grades 9 and 10). Primary and general secondary schools from Woredas in East Gojjam Administrative Zone were selected due to bullying prevalence and its serious consequences. In addition to familiarity with the language and culture, the researcher works in the study area that may contribute to the study.

Participants and sampling techniques

The quantitative data were drawn from 612 students aged 12–16 years attending five primary schools in grades 7and 8 and five general secondary schools in grades 9 and 10 (see Table 1 ). To select participants for this study, we used a multistage cluster sampling procedure. In the first stage, we subdivided the 19 Woredas of East Gojjam Administrative Zone into five groups based on the number of students’ population from grades 7–10. From each group, we selected one woreda randomly. Then, from each woreda, one general secondary school was chosen randomly. Next, for accessibility and comparison purposes, from all primary schools in the area where the selected general secondary schools were situated, one primary school from each woreda was selected by using lottery method. Then, one class from each grade in each school was selected by applying lottery method. Accordingly, 20 classes of students from both primary and general secondary schools (10 classes each) were invited to participate in the study.

On the other hand, the qualitative data were drawn from 18 participants (9 boys and 9 girls) who witnessed bullying incidents. To select participants, a purposive sampling technique was employed. With the help of school principals, homeroom teachers, and classroom representatives, students who usually defend or passively watch when witnessing bullying incidents were selected. Participants’ age ranged from 14 to 16 years, and more than 22% were from rural areas. Concerning grade level, five students were from grade seven, four students from grade eight, five students from grade nine, and four students from grade ten.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All students who were attending grades 7–10 education in 20 classes were included in the study. Those students who witnessed bullying were also included in the study. Those students outside the age range of 12–16 years, who did not witness bullying, and absent from class during data collection were excluded from the study.

Data collection instruments

Questionnaire.

To collect quantitative data, self-report questionnaires have been adapted from previous sources [ 17 ]. To estimate the prevalence and examine the association between bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying, participants were asked to recall one particular incident where they witnessed a student/s bullying another student since the beginning of this semester. The items included in the questionnaire were: “Describe in brief the nature of the bullying incident you witnessed,” “When and where the bullying incident happened,” “Describe the characteristics of the victim and the bully (sex, grade, bystander’s relationship with the victim/bully such as close relative, close friend, classmate, a person that I knew but have no close relationship, or person that I did not know),” and “What did you do when you witnessed bullying incident?”.

A bystander was placed into categories of defender, passive bystander, and bully supporter based on his/her reactions to the bullying incident in the school:

If a student answers, “I joined in the bullying when the bully had started it,” “I assisted the bullying by doing something for the bully”, and/or “I giggled, laughed, shouted, or made similar reactions,” s/he is categorized under “bully supporter.”

If a student answers, “I kept looking at the bullying without siding anyone,” “Nothing, I went away from the situation,” and/or “Nothing, I pretended not to notice what was happening,” s/he is categorized under “passive bystander.”

If a student answers, “I tried to help in some way but was not successful,” and/or I tried to help in some way and was successful,” s/he is categorized under “defender.”

The English version of the instrument was translated into the Amharic language by three language experts who have Ph.D. in Teaching Amharic, Linguistic, and Teaching English as a Foreign Language and whose mother tongue was Amharic. The principal investigator of this study synthesized a single version by combining the best cultural translation of each item. The appropriateness of the synthesized translated version was judged by three language experts (two Amharic, one English) and two psychologists. By taking into account the feedback offered by professionals, in view of the study's objectives and reviewed literature, the researcher of this study revised the synthesized translated version of the instrument. An expert from Debre Markos University who had a doctoral degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language back-translated the synthesized version from Amharic into English. Moreover, the Amharic version of the instrument was submitted to seven psychology instructors of Debre Markos University to assess the instruments' content validity. Based on comments of experts, some items were modified. Finally, the questionnaire was administered to the participants during the period 01–31 January 2019.

Semi-structure interview

The interviews were conducted face to face by the principal investigator from 01 April to 02 May 2019 using semi-structured open-ended items with probing questions. Interviews were conducted at the offices of the counselor, or school director lasted between 30 and 45 min. Students were alone (not accompanied by guardians/parents) when interviews were administered. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and notes were taken properly. Items in the interview guide include: “If you have witnessed someone being bullied by another student, tell me what happened?”, “How did you feel when you saw bullying happening?”, “What did you do when you witnessed bullying happening? Why?”, “Who else witnessed the bullying situations besides you?”, “What did they do when this was happening?”, “Why do you think they reacted this way?”, “Why do you think that some students defend and others remain silent in bullying incidents?” and “How do you describe boys and girls' engagement in defending or passive bystanding behaviors?”.

Data analysis techniques

Researchers employed percentage to describe the rate of defending and passive bystanding behavior during bullying incidents for data analysis. Chi-square test of independence was used to check the association between bystanders’ sex, their relationship with the victim and with the bully, and their reaction to the bullying incident. Thematic analysis [ 31 ] was used to analyze the qualitative data.

Ethical considerations

Addis Ababa University School of Psychology Ethical Review Committee exempted the study from requiring ethical clearance and suggested collecting letter of permission from the school of Psychology. Accordingly, a letter of permission was collected from the School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University.

Permission letters were submitted to East Gojjam Administrative Zone Education Office. The office itself wrote a letter of permission to school directors. After receiving permission from school directors, students were also asked their willingness to participate in the study. Before data collection, informed assent and passive consent were secured from students and parents, respectively. Students were also informed that they would be free to omit any questions they did not want to answer. The participants were also informed that their identity would not be disclosed to any third party, and the information they provided would be kept confidential.

The extent of defenders, passive bystanders, and bully supporters

Out of 511 participants who reported witnessing a single bullying incident, 55% of bystanders reported being passive bystanders, and 38% of them reported being defenders (see Table 2 ). The Chi-Square test revealed significant differences between the three percentages, x 2 (2, N = 511) = 181.131, p  = 0.000.

In the semi-structured interview, all of the participants agreed that most of the students did not want to defend the victims when witnessing school bullying. For instance, One interviewee stated, “Those who stand and watch victimization were larger than those who defend because they have the interest to see the fight and to know who wins at the end.”

The extent of students involved in defending, passive bystanding, and bully supporting by bully-victim sex

As shown in Table 3 , 39.3% of bystanders witnessed male victimizing male, 33.1% witnessed male victimizing female, 20.2% witnessed female victimizing female, and 7.4% witnessed female victimizing male.

Since the bully support role expected frequencies were less than 5 in more than 8% of the cells [ 32 ], and the purpose of the study focused on defending and passive bystanding behaviors, the bully support role was removed from further analysis (see Table 4 ).

The Chi-Square test revealed no significant association between bully-victim sex and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (3, N = 475) = 1.956, p  = 0.58, Cramer’s V = 0.06.

The extent to which male and female bystanders defend, or remain passive upon witnessing victimization across bully-victim sex

Tables 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 summarizes that 67.2% of males and 32.8% females had witnessed male victimizing male, 31.2% males, and 68.8% females witnessed male victimizing femalel, 14.4% males and 85.6% females witnessed female victimizing female, and 63.9% males and 36.1% females witnessed female victimizing male.

Among students who witnessed male victimizing male, 40.2% of boys and 38.7% of girls defended victims. Besides, 36% of boys and 49.1% of girls who witnessed male victimizing female helped victims in some way. Regarding students who saw female victimizing female, 46.2% of boys and 35.1% of girls defended victims. Moreover, 30.4% of boys and 53.8% of girls helped victims when witnessing female victimizing male.

The Chi-Square test revealed no significant association between bystander’s sex with victimization across bully-victim sex and bystander’s reaction. The Chi-Square test values were χ 2 (1, N = 189) = 0.001, p  = 0.974, phi  = − 0.014, for students witnessing male victimizing male; χ 2 (1, N = 160) = 1.881, p  = 0.170, phi  = − 0.122, for students witnessing male victimizing female; and χ 2 (1, N = 36) = 1.057, p  = 0.304, phi  = − 0.231, for students witnessing female victimizing male.

The interview data revealed that boys and girls intervened when witnessing school bullying. For instance, Hermela noted, “When male victimizes female, mostly girls hold girls and boys hold boys.” Kidist, a ninth-grade student, also indicated, “When female victimizes female, both boys and girls may intervene.”

The qualitative data demonstrated a dissimilar intervention approach between girls and boys when witnessing male physically victimizing male. Male students, most of the time, defend directly when witnessing male physically victimizing male. On the other hand, girls can participate in defending indirectly by screaming or calling other students or reporting the case to the school authority. For instance, Hermela says, “When male physically attacks male, mostly boys and teachers directly intervene.” Debasu, an eighth-grade student said “If a girl directly intervenes when male is victimized, rumors will spread which show the girl has love affair with the victim.”

The extent of students’ participation in defending and passive bystanding behavior by relationship with the victim or bully

As indicated in Tables 9 and 10 , bystanders were asked to report their relationship with victims and bullies. Among those who reported their relationship with victims and bullies, 3.6% and 3.8% reported to be relatives, 26.7% and 11.6% close friends, 24.6% and 24.2% classmates, 24.6% and 26.3% knew the victim/bully, but have no close relationships, and 20.4% and 34.1% did not know the victim and bully, respectively. Among those who reported their relationship with the victim, 52.9% of relatives, 60.6% of close friends, and 47.8% of classmates defended the victim. Similarly, among those who reported their relationship with the bully, 61.1% of relatives, 49.1% of close friends, and 47% of classmates defended the victim.

The Chi-Square test revealed that there is a significant association between the relationship with the victim and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (4, 475) = 32.79, p  < 0.001, phi = − 0.263; and between relationship with the bully and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (4, N = 475) = 9.847, p  = 0.043, phi  = − 0.114.

The qualitative data through interview indicated that bystanders’ close relationship with the victim or/and bully as key determinant of defending upon witnessing school bullying. For instance, Debasu said “I have entered (involved in defending) because both the perpetrators and the victims were my friends.” A grade eight student named Binyam stated, “Students who are relative or close friends…to the victim/bully would not have any role other than separating the bully and the victim.” Hermela also noted that relatives, friends, and teachers are defenders during victimization.

On the other hand, not being a friend of the bully or the victim was reported as a possible reason for bystanders’ passive bystanding. For instance, Hermela mentioned “bystanders’ not being the friend of the bully or the victim as one reason for bystanders to surround and watch bullying events. Had the bystanders been friends of the victim/bully, they would have intervened or they would have called a teacher.”

The extent to which students defend or passively watch during bullying incidents

The findings of this study revealed that a larger proportion of students remained passive upon witnessing school bullying. Fifty five percent of bystanders were involved in passive bystanding behavior, and 38% of them involved in defending behavior.

The interview data also supported the findings of the quantitative data. All participants of the interview reported that many bystanders most often stood by passively, and only some of them defended the victim. Many participants concisely stated that when students in school witness bullying incidents, most of them often stand and observe while a small number of others decide to defend.

These findings are consistent with prior studies [ 14 , 17 ]. For instance, a study conducted on college students who recalled bullying events occurring in junior high school and high school students with the same method reported that 59% of bystanders chose to remain passive upon witnessing bullying situations, and 31% of them were involved in defending on behalf of the victims [ 17 ]. Similar findings were also reported in an observational study conducted in two Toronto school children in Canada [ 14 ]. Even the percentages are very close to the ones this study found.

There are various explanations attributed to the surpassing of passive bystanders to defenders in East Gojjam Administrative Zone. One reason for passivity of bystanders during bullying incidents may involve the gradual decline of helping relationships due to urbanization. In the past, people do not often standby and watch when one individual victimized another. Findings in Yetmen, East Gojjam, revealed that when conflicts arise within and between households, they were usually resolved by neighbors. If neighbors cannot solve the problem, relatives of the two parties consider the problem and try to address it. If this level of conflict resolution fails, the elder of the community get involved [ 28 ]. So, helping each other during an emergency was the norm. Due to urbanization, the norms of helping relationships are changing somehow in the current East Gojjam. Another possible explanation for more passive bystanders to defenders involves fear of revenge. If the perpetrator is older and/or physically stronger than the bystander, the bystanders are more likely to remain passive. Student bystanders may believe that defending on behalf of the victim could lead the older/or stronger bully to attack the defender later. Many other personal and situational factors (e.g., lower level of bystander’s self-efficacy, empathy, lower number of close friends, bullying experiences, high moral disengagement) may also be used to explain greater proportions of passive bystanders to defenders in bullying situations [ 17 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 33 ].

The quantitative findings demonstrated that there were no significant difference between boys and girls in defending and passive bystanding behaviors upon witnessing a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a boy.

According to the interview data, both boys and girls can intervene when a boy victimizes a boy. But, their style of intervention may differ. Boys may intervene directly when witnessing physical bullying, whereas girls may intervene indirectly. Many participants said that boys, teachers, and adults directly intervene when a boy physically victimizes a boy. One possible reason for the direct intervention of more boys than girls was that if a girl intervenes directly when a boy victimizes a boy, rumors of love between the girl and the victim will spread. In the culture of the study area, having a boyfriend for a girl and a girlfriend for a boy is not a commonly accepted norm at that age level. If they establish such kinds of friendship, they do not disclose it to others. If other students know the relationship, they become the target of the rumor. So as to avoid being the target of the rumor, the girl will decide to use indirect strategies to help the victim.

Another possible explanation for more direct defending of boys than girls in physical bullying was that boys were more often socialized and culturally expected to defend directly than girls. Let alone defending on behalf of the victim, boys are expected to be a winner in any fight by their families and are not accepted by families if beaten up by anyone. If they fail to win the fight, their parents could further beat them. Though girls’ involvement in separating the bully and the victim is less direct, they frequently call defenders by screaming.

The finding also indicated that when a boy victimizes a girl, a girl victimizes a girl, and a girl victimizes a boy, most of the interview participants reported that both boys and girls are engaged in defending. This finding partly contradicts some other findings [ 24 , 25 ]. To explain these findings further, future researches are needed.

The current study revealed that students who were reported to be close friends, classmates, and relatives of the victims appear to defend the victim more than persons who either knew the victim or did not know them. Consistent with the current study, five studies included in one systematic review have examined the association between friendship with students involved in bullying situations and defending [ 33 ]. The studies revealed that youth were more likely to defend when the victimized youth was their friend, relative to a neutral peer. Similarly, some studies [ 26 , 27 ] revealed the association between bystanders’ close relationship with the victim and helping. For example, suppose a bystander is watching one’s own friend being bullied. In that case, the situation evokes more distressing emotions of empathy, sympathy, guilt, or anger and a stronger moral obligation and responsibility to intervene to help one’s friend [ 27 ].

The findings from the interview data also corroborated the quantitative results. The study showed that after bystanders witnessed bullying incidents, they evaluate their relationships (friendship, kinship, and disliking) with the bully, victim, or both before deciding to defend or passively watch the bullying incident. If bystanders witness victims with intimate relationships (friendship and blood relationship), they are more likely to defend the victim. Participants mentioned being close friends, relatives, and teachers with the victim as contributing factors to defending.

The finding that students who were reported to be relatives, close friends, and classmates of the bully appear to defend the victim more than persons who know and those who did not know the bully was unexpected. The qualitative interview also supported this finding. Some interview participants disclosed that having a close relationship with the bully would motivate the bystander to assist the victim. If bystanders are close friends or relatives of the bully, they can enter with confidence to protect the victim believing that the bully will not attack them later. Another possible reason for bystanders who have close relationships with the bully to stop the bully could be the belief that the problem will worsen and affect the whole family and its relatives. However, one participant reported that if bystanders have a close relationship with the bully, they might assist the bully to harm the victim further. Thus, further studies are needed.

Limitations of the study

The current study has some limitations. First, the study participants were limited to young and middle adolescents in East Gojjam Administrative Zone. This could reduce the diversity of the sample and the generalizability of the findings. Had I included adults as well, the findings could have been more generalizable. Second, the quantitative and qualitative findings on defending and passive bystanding behaviors were based on self-report measures. In self-reporting data, study participants may not always provide honest evidences. Third, the current research was cross-sectional, where cause and effect relationships could not be inferred.

Fourth, it is expected that if the perpetrator is older and/or physically stronger than the bystander, the bystander is more likely to remain passive during the incident of bullying. However, the current study did not collect information on age and/or physical differences between bully and bystander. If future studies include age and physical differences between the bystander and the bully, it would have more insights into school bullying literature.

Practice of defending among students attending their education in governmental primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone was low. Close social relationships (being close friends, relatives, and classmates) with the victim and bully were significantly associated with the practice of defending. The findings of our qualitative study also showed that the number of passive bystanders was larger than defenders during witnessing school bullying; and bystanders’ close relationship with the victim, or/and bully as key determinants of defending.

High prevalence of passive bystanding behavior demand prevention programs that can discourage bullying in schools among bystanders in bullying situations through encouraging defending behavior irrespective of bully-victim sex, and helping bystanders establish close social relationships with the victim or/and bully.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets that support the findings of this study are not publically available at present. The authors need to use the data for further works before data could be made available. Besides, we have not received consent from participants to share the data on the web but, will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Hong JS, Espelage DL. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: an ecological system analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2012;17:311–22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Smith PK, Sharp S, editors. The problem of school bullying. New York: USA Routledge; 1994.

Google Scholar  

Delfabbro P, Winefield T, Trainor S, Dollard M, Anderson S, Metzer J, et al. Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: prevalence and psychosocial profiles. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76:71–90.

Harris S, Petrie GF. Bullying: the bullies, the victims, the bystanders. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 2003.

Rigby K, Johnson B. Expressed readiness of Australian Schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educ Psychol. 2006;26(3):425–40.

Amogne A. Indiscipline problems of high school students: the case of Ethio-Japan Hidasse Secondary School (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). J Educ Pract. 2014;5(37):23–8.

Dereje T, Derese M, editors. Violence in Ethiopian schools: a study of some schools in Addis Ababa. Lausanne: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 1997.

Habtamu W. Interpersonal violence in Addis Ababa secondary schools: an iceberg of challenges to the democratization of education in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: IER/AAU; 1998.

Kinde G, Meknnen S. Types, magnitude, predictors, and controlling mechanisms of aggression in secondary schools of Jimma zone. Ethiop J Educ Sci. 2007;2(2):39–61.

Yehualashet M, Negussie D. Children’s worlds national report Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum; 2015.

Getachew M, Ayu G, Desalegne A, Animut A, Fasil W, Chalachew T, et al. Prevalence of gender based violence and associated factors among female students of Menkorer high school in Debre Markos town. Northwest Ethiop Sci J Public Health. 2015;3(1):67–74.

Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Kaukiainen A. Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress Behav. 1996;22:1–15.

Hawkins DL, Pepler DJ, Craig WM. Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Soc Dev. 2001;10(4):512–27.

O’Connell P, Pepler D, Craig W. Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention. J Adolesc. 1999;22:437–52.

Thornberg R, Jungert T. Bystander behavior in bullying situations: basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. J Adolesc. 2013;36(3):475–83.

Salmivalli C, Voeten M. Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. Int J Behav Dev. 2004;28(3):246–58.

Oh I, Hazler RJ. Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. Sch Psychol Int. 2009;30(3):291–310.

Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Altoe G. Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggress Behav. 2007;33:467–76.

Pronk J, Olthof T, Goossens FA. Factors influencing interventions on behalf of victims of bullying: a counterfactual approach to the social cognitions of outsiders and defenders. J Early Adolesc. 2014;36(2):267–91.

Pöyhönen V, Juvonen J, Salmivalli C. What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2010;56(2):143–63.

Obermann M. Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying. Aggress Behav. 2011;37:133–44.

Gini G, Pozzoli T, Bussey K. The role of individual and collective moral disengagement in peer aggression and bystanding: a multilevel analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015;43:441–52.

Pouwels JL, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN. Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria. Aggress Behav. 2016;42:239–53.

Fox CL, Jones SE, Stiff CE, Sayers J. Does the gender of the bully/victim dyad and the type of bullying influence children’s responses to a bullying incident? Aggress Behav. 2014;40:359–68.

Sainio M. Same- and other-sex victimization: risk factors, consequences, and protection by peers. Turku: University of Turku; 2013.

Thornberg R, Tenenbaum L, Varjas K, Meyers J, Jungert T, Vanegas G. Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene? West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(3):247–52.

Forsberg C, Thornberg R, Samuelsson M. Bystanders to bullying: fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Res Pap Educ. 2014;29(5):557–76.

WIDE1. research done 1994/5. 1994/5.

Creswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2012.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2009.

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research a practical guide for beginners. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.

Ho R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 2006.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lambe LJ, Cioppa VD, Hong IK, Craig WM. Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:51–74.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Addis Ababa University for its financial support. We would also like to thank teachers at primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone for their invaluable assistance in collecting data. Finally, we would like to acknowledge principals for facilitating the data collection and all participants of this study for their time and patience in responding to our interviews and questionnaires.

Addis Ababa University financially supported this study. However, the University did not have any role in the design of the study, data collection, and analysis, as well as in the interpretation of data and writing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia

Temesgen Demissie Eijigu

School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Seleshi Zeleke Teketel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TDE has been involved in the study concept and design, data acquisition, drafting the manuscript, administrative, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the data and final proof of the manuscript. SZT has been involved in the study concept and design, technical and study supervision, and manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Temesgen Demissie Eijigu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Department of Psychology at Addis Ababa University approved the study procedures for the dissertation, of which this manuscript is part of the dissertation. Psychology Department Ethical Committee exempted from requiring ethical clearance since this study collected data from schools with no physical or psychological harm on participants. Written informed consent was obtained from parents, and informed assent was obtained from student participants. The questionnaires were anonymous and fictitious names were assigned to interviewees. No payment was made to all participants, and interviews were conducted individually by the corresponding author.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Eijigu, T.D., Teketel, S.Z. Bullying in schools: prevalence, bystanders’ reaction and associations with sex and relationships. BMC Psychol 9 , 183 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00685-5

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2020

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 22 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00685-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Passive bystanding
• Bystander reaction

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]