This Issue: Theories of Bullying and Cyberbullying

B ULLYING REFERS TO A subtype of aggression, in which intentional harm is repeatedly inflicted upon a target with lesser power than the perpetrator. Bullying and victimization in schools have been linked to decreased academic performance (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005; Holt, Finkelhor, & Kantor, 2007; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Tobin, 2005), increased absenteeism (Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003; Forero, McLellan, Rissel, & Bauman, 1999; Kearney, 2008; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), and negative psychosocial adjustment (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Haynie et al., 2001; Smith, 2004) on the part of victims, bullies, and bystanders. Cyberbullying has emerged as an additional weapon in the arsenal of those who seek to harm others. Because of unique characteristics of this new form of bullying, including perceived anonymity, online disinhibition effect encouraging increased cruelty, absence of time/space limitations, enormous size of potential audience, absence of nonverbal clues to message intent, and the permanence of content, experts believe that the consequences from victimization by cyberbullying may be even more severe than those of conventional victimization. For nearly 30 years, researchers around the world have studied bullying to provide an empirical basis for prevention and intervention programs and strategies. Recently, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) analyzed data from published and unpublished reports of evaluations of antibullying programs from 1983 to 2009, and concluded that although they are generally effective, the impact is modest with an average decrease in bullying of 20–23% and a decrease in victimization of 17–20%. These scholars identified the components that were associated with decreases: more intensive programs (20 hours or more of program delivery), and programs that include parent meetings, teacher training, clear disciplinary practices, and improved playground supervision. Surprisingly, “work with peers” (i.e., peer mediation, peer mentoring, and encouraging bystander intervention; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011, p. 42) was associated with an increase in victimization and also in bullying, although the relationship with bullying was not statistically significant. Also important in the findings was that programs were generally less effective in the United States of America and Canada than in Norway and the rest of Europe. The popular media have drawn attention to these problems by reporting on sensational incidents with particularly tragic outcomes. Researchers have focused on attempting to quantify prevalence, identify characteristics of involved youth, gender, and other demographic differences in the behaviors, and risk and protective factors that influence involvement in bullying. At the same time, legislation in many states has mandated that schools develop policies regarding bullying and cyberbullying, and many publishers have hurried to market programs and curricula to satisfy school district needs to do something about the problem. Many programs are developed without reference to a theoretical basis, although experts have noted that one reason for the absence of a strong impact is that the programs