Читать книгу The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development - Группа авторов - Страница 41

Research on bullying and peer victimization began in Scandinavia during the late 1970s following a spate of suicides attributed to bullying (Olweus, 1978). By the late 1990s, bullying had become a worldwide public health crisis fueled by a series of highly publicized suicides (Greene, 1993) and violent acts (e.g., 1999 Columbine shootings) committed by previously bullied children. In response to this crisis, scientists from many countries established research and policy initiatives (European Association of Developmental Psychology, 2007 UNESCO, n.d.) and searched for ways to eliminate bullying. Thereafter, evidence began to accrue about the determinants of bullying, the characteristics of bullies and victims, the effects of bullying on victims, the impact of cultures and cohorts, and the results of prevention programs.

Theory and research on the causes of bullying implicated genetic as well as environmental determinants (Ball et al., 2008). Definitional, measurement, and taxonomic innovations led to the identification of different types of bullies (e.g., bullies, bully‐victims), victims (e.g., passive, aggressive victims), and bystanders (e.g., defenders, reinforcers, assistants; Huitsing & Veenstra, 2012). Characteristics ascribed to bullies included aggressiveness, impulsiveness, physical strength, positive self‐concept, and, depending on the subtype, social intelligence (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016). Passive victims were characterized as shy, anxious, physically weak, isolated, low in self‐esteem, and submissive toward bullies (Olweus, 1978; Perry et al., 1988). In contrast, aggressive, or provocative victims were described as angry, impulsive, emotionally dysregulated, and vengeful (Schwartz, 2000).

The victims of bullying, it was found, often developed multiple and enduring psychological and health problems including internalizing and externalizing problems (Reijntjes et al., 2010, 2011). Many of these maladies were found to be chronic, even following the termination of abuse (Kochenderfer‐Ladd & Wardrop, 2001; Wolke & Lereya, 2015).

Bullying venues and tactics were found to vary by culture and cohort. International surveys (Elgar et al., 2009), although complicated by cultural, definitional, and translational issues (Smith et al., 2016), revealed cross‐national differences in bullying rates (e.g., lower in wealthier countries) and tactics (e.g., harassing familiar vs. unfamiliar peers). As recent cohorts of children accessed cell phones and the internet (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009), bullying venues and tactics shifted, and incidents of “cyberbullying” increased (Wolak et al., 2006). By the mid‐2000s, cyberbullying was a top research priority, and accruing evidence linked it with both internalizing and externalizing problems (Menesini & Spiel, 2012).

Antibullying programs were initially implemented in Scandinavia (Olweus Bully Prevention Program [OBPP]; Olweus & Limber, 2010) and were designed to reduce bullying via adult‐mediated environmental management (e.g., rules, limit setting, establishing consequences). Findings showed that, after 20 months, the OBPP achieved a nearly 50% reduction in bully‐victim problems. Newer programs (e.g., KiVa; Salmivalli & Poskiparta, 2012) incorporated peer‐mediated intervention strategies (e.g., empowering peer defenders) and proved effective particularly with preadolescents. Currently, antibullying efforts are widespread. Investigators in many countries have devised and tested a myriad of antibullying programs, and meta‐analyses of the results suggest that many produce modest but significant reductions in bullying and victimization (Jiménez‐Barbero et al., 2016).