Bullying Fundamentals

Bullying Fundamentals provides comprehensive information on the definition and drivers of bullying.

Why Bullying Prevention and Resolution Solutions Should be a Priority for Educators

Bullying prevention is not just about discipline and behavior. An environment where students feel safe and accepted by peers is the foundation for a good education. Students being harmed by aggression are not able to focus on learning. Educators should make bullying prevention a top priority for many reasons, including the following:

Bullying causes harm. Unlike physical assault, however, the harm caused by bullying is not always visible. And while the wounds caused by a physical assault may heal quickly, the harm caused by bullying can last a lifetime. Just because the harm cannot be seen, it doesn’t mean it is not occurring. Educators should not differentiate between visible harm and invisible harm in terms of their efforts to prevent and stop it.
Students who are being bullied by a peer and who are forced to be with that peer are essentially trapped in an abusive relationship. The adults who manage the environment in which this abuse is occurring have a moral and ethical responsibility to identify it, stop it, and prevent further instances of it.
Bullied students cannot focus on their schoolwork, which is why a decline in grades is often cited as a sign of a child being bullied. Given the numbers of students who are being bullied in a school at any one time (20–30%, depending upon the research study), addressing the bullying problems in a school should result in better overall test scores for the student body.
Bullying can lead to tragic outcomes, and schools can be held accountable (multimillion-dollar settlements are becoming the norm). From a liability risk mitigation perspective, schools need to do all they can to implement effective mechanisms to ensure that these tragedies do not happen.

Updated 3/29/2024

Key Terms and Objective Language

The terms and language used in resolving a bullying issue can affect the outcome. Some traditional bullying terms, such as “bully” and “victim,” carry negative connotations that can impede resolution. Even the term “bullying” is problematic. Using objective terminology and being sensitive to how certain terms are perceived help avoid negative responses and ensure an accurate understanding of the issue by all stakeholders—educators, students, and parents.

The following terms are problematic:

bully: a term that is a label and is dehumanizing. In addition, the term carries negative connotations about the person’s character. A person might use bullying behavior in their interactions; however, no person is a “bully.” The term should never be used to describe an individual.
victim: a term that carries negative connotations of helplessness and an inability to respond or take action. This term should be avoided.

The term bullying presents challenges in that its use and meaning can vary based on the knowledge and perspective of the stakeholder. Its use in certain contexts can make resolving an issue more difficult and trigger required but sometimes counterproductive actions based on district requirements and state laws. Consider the following:

An aggressor who is unaware that his behavior is causing harm will not understand why such a negative and derogatory the term is being used. Using the term “bullying” to describe behavior that the aggressor considers to be innocuous can make the aggressor feel unjustly accused of an inappropriate action.
Given the negative connotations of the term with respect to the aggressor’s character or intent, use of the term can elicit strong negative reactions from the aggressor’s parents, who may also feel that their child is being falsely or unjustly accused. Parents who are told their child is “bullying another” may become defensive and antagonistic toward educators and want to shield their child from these “accusations.” Some parents may become angry with their child, mistakenly understanding “bullying” to mean intentional harm. Parents of the target who are told that their child is “being bullied” will want to protect their child. They may blame the school for the problem and demand justice. In addition, the term “bullying” can have different meanings in different cultures. To some parents of certain ethnicities, the term can be a significant indictment of the child, whether the child is the aggressor or the target.
Students, particularly younger ones, use the term to complain about aggression that is not causing harm but rather is bothersome or annoying. Educators need to take care in its use to ensure students do not apply it to instances of less serious aggression.
Society has been conditioned to think of bullying very negatively and that the consequence for such a negative, harmful action should be punitive. This negative response and automatic association with punishment is counterproductive.
Use of the term in certain administrative contexts can trigger reporting requirements and punitive actions that are often unnecessary and counterproductive.

The following terms are recommended:

aggression: a broad and general term that describes a wide variety of behaviors, including pushing, shoving, teasing, mocking, intimidating, antagonizing, and socially excluding. Aggression is delivered face-to-face; indirectly, such as through rumors; and in writing, such as on paper or objects, or virtually through social media. Aggression is both normal and common in student social interactions, including between good friends. The majority of aggression is not harmful.
aggressor: the person in a social interaction who directs aggression at another person, and in cases where multiple individuals are using aggression, the person(s) who initiates or leads the aggression. The use of the term does not imply any sort of judgment about the person or action.
target: the person in a social interaction at whom aggression is directed. For simplicity, this guide uses the term “target” to indicate both those who are harmed and not harmed by the aggression. A more accurate term for the person who is harmed is “affected target.” When the term “target” is used in this guide, the context is always provided to indicate the meaning, i.e., whether the target is harmed or not.
supporter: a person who follows an aggressor’s lead and also directs aggression at the target.
bystander: a person who is witness to aggression. The bystander can be “active” in that he shows explicit approval of the aggressor’s behavior through either physical or verbal actions or body language, or a bystander can be “passive” in that he observes aggression but does not indicate support for the aggressor.
participant: a person who supports the efforts of an aggressor to socially isolate a target. This term is specific to relational aggression.
chronic target: a person who has consistently been a target of peers for a period of time such that the use of aggression toward that person is viewed as normal and natural behavior by members of the peer group.

Updated: 12/6/23

The Driver of Student Behavior: Social Status

Student behavior is driven by the primary goal of improving social standing among peers. In general, except for what is required by others (such as teachers and parents), everything students do is influenced, if not fully driven, by an all-consuming need for peer approval. Social status becomes the number one priority for girls starting around kindergarten and for boys at around third grade, with nonbinary students likely falling somewhere within that range. When students interact with each other, they are not thinking so much about how their behavior affects others but rather how their behavior benefits their own social status.

Social status is so important to students that the majority (75%) will break a school rule if doing so improves their status. For example, if a teacher tells all students to be quiet but a student thinks of a comment that will make peers laugh, the student will likely make the comment despite the teacher’s directive for silence. Students will generally do everything they can to be accepted by their peers and gain their approval. The need to maintain status is what drives students to want to stay constantly connected with peers, either in person or virtually. Just as importantly, students will do all they can to avoid behaviors that would make them look bad in the eyes of their peers.

Updated: 12/6/23

Peer Approval Requires a Peer Audience

All student behavior that is intended to have a positive effect on social status, i.e., maintain or increase status, occurs in front of a peer audience because peers determine an individual’s status through approval and validation. The student who makes a funny comment to his friends after being told not to talk believes the benefit provided by cracking a joke in front of his peer audience outweighs the consequence, such as a reprimand. If that student did not have that peer audience—if he were sitting alone or not near friends—he would not have the same incentive to speak.

Students will do or say things considered outlandish or shocking, such as vandalism or saying something terrible to a peer, in front of a peer audience if they believe the increase in social status outweighs the consequence. When presented with an opportunity to improve status, some students will not even consider the consequences of their behavior.

Student behavior can change significantly when the peer audience is not present. A student who constantly teases another student in front of others in order to get peers to laugh may not tease that student when the two of them are alone since the sole purpose of the teasing is peer approval.

Updated: 12/6/23

How Aggression Is Used to Positively Affect Social Status

Student interactions involve a constant stream of aggression—pushes, shoves, taunts, mockery, insults, antagonism, social alliances, and exclusion. This aggression can be delivered face-to-face; indirectly (e.g., via rumors); and in writing, both physically, such as on tangible objects like paper or a bathroom stall wall, or virtually, such as through words and images on social media.

Aggression is used to establish social hierarchies within larger groups of students, such as classes. Students in a class use a variety of behaviors to define the social “pecking order.” For example, when students move from elementary to middle school and class compositions are maintained from one school to the next, there is generally no change in the level of aggression within the classes as social hierarchies are preserved. But when students move to different schools and class compositions change—students are mixed into different classes—levels of aggression temporarily increase as students reestablish social hierarchies within each class.

Aggression is also used at a smaller group level, such as within a group of friends, to define or assert the group’s identity by directing aggression at nonmembers, particularly those who have characteristics or identities different from the group members. A group of students on a sports team may direct aggression at nonteam members. A group of students of a particular ethnicity may direct aggression at others of a different ethnicity. A group of friends may use aggression to let others know that they are not part of the group. It is important to note that this aggression has an inward focus, meaning it serves to reinforce the personal bonds of those in the group, not so much to indicate exclusion or rejection of those outside the group.

Aggression is used at the individual level to positively affect social status. Physical aggression is used to gain respect through intimidation. Teasing, taunts, and mocking, whether in written or verbal form, are used to appear clever or funny to others. Exclusion is used to diminish the social status of another, which can help the person doing the excluding to maintain status. The leader of a group may use aggression against other group members in order to defend the leadership position. Aggression is also directed by an individual in a group at those outside of the group to get affirmation by the other group members that the individual is included in the group.

Aggression between students is normal and natural. The majority of it is not harmful, and students need to learn both how to use it appropriately and how to respond to it effectively in order to develop well-rounded social skills. Students should be free to engage in aggression, even at the risk of some students experiencing discomfort (though not harm), as this provides an opportunity to mature and develop confidence, self-reliance, resilience, and empathy.

Updated: 12/6/23

Use of Personal Characteristics in Aggression

Some forms of aggression explicitly reference a unique characteristic of the target. This characteristic can be something about the target’s appearance, body shape, clothing, family and/or background, ethnicity, religion, interests, special ability or disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic circumstances, the fact that he is new at school, or any other aspect of the target. In aggression involving groups, characteristics are used to affirm the group’s identity (i.e., the group members do not have the characteristic of the target). The selection of a particular characteristic can also reflect prejudice or contempt on the part of the aggressor, such as when the referenced characteristic pertains to ethnicity or involves a stereotype.

Update: 12/6/23

Popular Students Determine Acceptable Peer Group Behavior

The degree to which behaviors are accepted within a peer group is often determined by the most popular student or students in that peer group. If the most popular student disapproves of how a student is being treated by the peer group, those behaviors may stop. But if a popular student shows approval of or neutrality toward a behavior, the behavior will continue. This influence correlates to how strongly members of the group seek the popular student’s approval. If a peer does not care about getting the approval of the most popular student, the popular student’s influence on that peer will be limited.

Updated: 12/6/23

Aggression “Flows Down” Social Structures

Although all students use aggression, it tends to be directed down the social hierarchy within a large peer group such as a class because aggression directed at a peer with a lower social status does not carry the risk of social status loss. A student who directs aggression at a more popular student may find that the peer audience will rally to the side of and support the more popular student since that student’s approval is more valuable socially than the aggressor’s.

When a student directs aggression at a student with lower status, some peer witnesses may join in (supporters) and direct aggression at the target in an effort to gain the approval of the aggressor and improve their own social status. Other peer witnesses may show implicit support for the aggressor (active bystanders) through reactions (e.g., laughter) or their body language, but not join in and direct aggression at the target. Some bystanders simply observe but don’t intervene or show support (passive bystanders). Intervention would mean taking the side of a lower-status student (the target) against not only the higher-status aggressor but also any supporters and active bystanders, which can carry a significant social cost and the risk of becoming a target of the aggression.

In almost all large social groups, such as a class, there are one or two individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy who are targets of aggression by members of the entire group (chronic targets). These individuals have no peer support and are “risk-free” targets since no peers will intervene.

New students are often the target of aggression because they enter a class of students without any peer support and are generally at the bottom of the social structure until they establish friendships. Their position in the social hierarchy will generally be equal to that of their friends. The development of a social network by the new student can be helped or hindered by how the most popular students in the peer group behave toward the new student.

Updated: 12/6/23

Effect of the Target’s Reaction on the Benefits of Aggression

Aggression can positively affect status no matter how the target of the aggression reacts, whether the target laughs, gets angry or upset, shrugs it off, or returns the aggression. Certain reactions can, however, increase the social benefit. A target who exhibits fear from physical aggression delivers on the aggressor’s goal of getting a display of deference and respect, which can make observing peers also show respect to the aggressor. A target of verbal aggression who gets upset may increase the social benefit realized by the aggressor as the observing peers may be even more entertained. A target who pretends that aggression intended to socially isolate her is not happening, i.e., the target stands by passively and does not defend herself and her friendships, increases the chance that the aggression will succeed. In all cases of physical and verbal aggression, a reaction by the target that increases the benefit provided by the aggression increases the likelihood that the aggression will be repeated.

Certain reactions by targets can, however, reduce or eliminate the benefits to social status that aggression provides. A target who does not show fear when faced with physical aggression deprives the aggressor of his goal and may even make the aggressor appear foolish to observing peers. A target who laughs along with others at insults or mockery does not make the aggressor appear to be as funny or clever to observing peers and deprives the peer audience of any entertainment that getting upset provides. A target who takes action to defend against an aggressor who is trying to hurt her relationships with friends may cause the aggressor to fail in her efforts. In all of these instances, the target’s reaction may actually result in a loss of status by the aggressor, which ensures that the aggression won’t be repeated.

Updated: 12/6/23

Relevance of the Target’s Feelings to the Benefit of Aggression

In general, the target’s feelings about the aggression are not a factor in the social benefits gained by the aggressor. Except in cases where a target is upset to a degree that goes beyond what peers find acceptable and evokes feelings of pity or empathy toward the target, the way the aggression makes the target feel does not change the benefits. In addition, targets who are harmed by aggression tend to hide or suppress their emotions. Getting emotional in front of peers usually reduces social status. This lack of expression of any hurt caused by the aggression means that aggressors are generally unaware that the target’s feelings are hurt. Even when aggressors do become aware of the harm to a target and even feel genuine empathy for the target, so strong is the need for peer approval and so important is social status that aggressors may continue the aggression.

Updated: 12/6/23

Effect of Aggression on Targets

In many cases, aggression has no significant effect on targets. However, in some cases, aggression causes targets to feel rejected by both the aggressor and any peer witnesses. The actions of supporters and active bystanders are interpreted by the target to be explicit rejection while the passivity of those who observe but don’t intervene may be considered implicit rejection. The lack of intervention or support by any peers can make a target feel isolated and alone.

In addition to peer rejection and low social status, aggression can have other negative effects. Physical aggression makes a target feel afraid for his personal safety. Verbal and written aggression explicitly mentioning a characteristic of the target can make the target feel flawed, i.e., that the reason for the peer rejection is due to the characteristic. This type of harm is particularly damaging since a target who feels flawed due to a personal characteristic that cannot be changed may feel that there is nothing that can be done to gain peer approval.

The number of chronic targets in a peer group such as a class is a factor in the harm caused by aggression. One student in a class who is at the bottom of the social hierarchy and who is the sole target of the group’s aggression may blame himself for the aggression. Multiple students in a class who are the targets of the group’s aggression may blame the aggressors and feel a social connection to each other.

Updated: 12/6/23

The Modern Definition of Bullying

The modern definition of bullying is as follows:

Bullying occurs when aggression causes emotional harm. More specifically, bullying occurs when the use of behaviors intended to positively affect (maintain, increase, or protect) social status among peers causes emotional harm to the target of the behaviors.

Three erroneous notions found in traditional definitions of bullying are important to address here in order to ensure that the modern definition is clearly understood:

intent to harm: traditional definitions of bullying often include the condition that the aggressor “intends harm.” This is generally false. The aggressor intends to positively affect his own social status without regard for how the aggression affects the target. Even when informed that the aggression is causing harm, the aggressor may consider the resulting status benefit to be more important than stopping any harm that is affecting the target. An aggressor who insults a target and elicits a response of laughter from the peer audience is after that peer response; the aggressor is not thinking about how the target feels. The harm caused by the insult is simply a by-product of the aggressor’s desire for that positive peer response. Harm certainly occurs in bullying; however, causing harm to the target is not the primary intent of the aggression. An aggressor can direct identical behaviors at multiple individuals, including close friends. In all instances, the aggressor is seeking a status improvement. Please note that instances of aggression where physical harm occurs is considered assault, not bullying.
repetition: traditional definitions often require aggression to be “repeated” in order for bullying to be occurring. Repetition falls into a gray area. The behavior will be repeated if it provides a benefit. The repetition occurs because the aggression successfully provides that benefit. But repetition is not necessary for harm to occur. A target who is mocked one time by multiple individuals may experience the same emotional harm as a target mocked multiple times by one person. Aggression done once by multiple individuals to a single target meets the definition of bullying. Students who are chronically bullied and suffering harm may be the target of aggression from an entire class of peers, whose aggression toward that target on an individual basis may be so sporadic or intermittent that to an observing adult the behavior does not appear to fit the definition of “repeated.” The aggression that results in social isolation, which is a type of bullying that can cause extreme harm, generally does not involve repeated behaviors.
power imbalance: traditional definitions try to explain the nature of the social hierarchy and the ability of higher-status students to direct aggression at lower-status students without intervention from peers as a “power imbalance.” Some definitions even include a list of “powers,” such as physical strength, that are out of balance. The notion of a “power imbalance” is a clumsy and confusing way to explain that in bullying, the aggressor usually has a higher social status than the target. The aggressor has the approval of peers, meaning that no one will side with or come to the defense of the lower-status target due to the risk of losing social status or of becoming a target.

For more information on the problems with the traditional definitions of bullying, please see related articles in the “Problems with Traditional Approaches” section of the Information Center.

Updated: 12/6/23

Cyberbullying is a Means of Bullying, not a Type of Bullying

Despite having “bullying” in its name, cyberbullying is not a type of bullying. Cyberbullying is the use of social media to direct aggression at a target. A text from an aggressor to a target saying “see you in gym class” when gym class is where the aggressor routinely directs physical aggression at the target is still dominance aggression. An insult made in an online post visible to other members of the class is still rejective aggression. A photo shared via a social media app to a group that includes the target showing an aggressor and her friends having fun without the target is still relational aggression. In other words, social media is a virtual expressive means of communicating aggression. Other means include direct communication (face-to-face), indirect communication (rumors, talking behind someone’s back), and physical expressive communication (writing, pictures on physical objects). Directing aggression at a target using technology does not make it a different type of aggression.

A more accurate way to describe an instance of cyberbullying would be to say, for example, “dominance aggression using intimidating texts” or “a relational aggression campaign conducted using Snapchat and Instagram.” The application or social media channel used is incidental to the aggression itself. Classifying cyberbullying not as a type of bullying but rather as a means of delivering aggression is not meant to diminish its significance in bullying. It is meant to avoid a common pitfall of focusing on the technology and not the type of aggression delivered using the technology.

While cyberbullying is not a different type of aggression, social media is exceptionally effective as a delivery method for aggression and is problematic for the following reasons:

constant contact: social media allows students to interact constantly, even at times when direct communication is not permitted or possible. Social media essentially creates unrestricted social time, which is when most bullying tends to occur.
broad audience: social media provides a constant peer audience, which is both a benefit and a convenience since aggression to positively affect social status requires such an audience.
addictive: social media is addictive. Even students who are harmed by aggression delivered via social media are unable to ignore it. Social media essentially eliminates the ability of targets to separate from their aggressors.
invisible to adults: aggression delivered via social media can be invisible to adults. Unless adults are monitoring the social media of students, they may be completely unaware of harmful aggression that is occurring in their presence.
anonymity: aggressors and supporters are able to use social media to direct aggression at others while remaining anonymous, which can make resolution efforts particularly challenging.

Updated: 12/6/23

What Makes Aggression Bullying

Types of Aggression Used in Bullying

The aggression involved in bullying can be classified into three different types that reflect the aggressor’s intent in terms of the social benefit gained. The behaviors used in each type of aggression, however, can be similar. The following are the three types of aggression:

dominance aggression: a type of aggression where behaviors such as light physical contact; a demeanor projecting fearlessness, anger, or strength; and threats of harm are intended to intimidate a target by instilling a sense of fear of personal harm so that the target and observing peers will respect the aggressor.
rejective aggression: a type of aggression that uses a characteristic of a target to differentiate the target from peers. The characteristic can be related to anything about the target, real or perceived, and can include, but is not limited to, the target’s body size and physical features; personality traits; cultural background; ethnicity; socioeconomic standing; a material possession; a talent or skill; achievements and accomplishments; and group affiliation such a sports team, school, or interest group. This type of aggression is used to reinforce the bonds of a peer group, reaffirm membership in a peer group, gain the approval of higher-status peers, and/or diminish a positive aspect of the target.
relational aggression: a type of aggression that is intended to harm the friendships of the target so that the target is left socially isolated. This type of aggression is often used by an aggressor to maintain or protect social status by diminishing the status of the target.

Please note that all three types of aggression are used to create and maintain the social hierarchy of the peer group. Further, some aggressive behaviors may have characteristics of more than one type of aggression, and multiple types of aggression can be used in individual bullying cases. For example, a student may mock a characteristic of another (rejective aggression) in an intimidating manner (dominance aggression) for which the lack of response by the target is meant to show observing peers that the target is afraid of and won’t stand up to the aggressor. Or an aggressor may use a trait of a target (rejective aggression) as justification for members of the peer group to shun the target (relational aggression).

Updated: 12/6/23

Behaviors Common to Different Types of Aggression

Aggression that can instill feelings of peer rejection spans a wide spectrum of behaviors but can generally be classified into the following categories:

physical: often used in dominance aggression, includes actions such as intimidation, light physical contact such as pushes and shoves, and glares to instill fear in a target and respect for the aggressor. Aggressors who engage in physical aggression generally do not intend physical harm.
verbal: used in all three types of aggression, includes face-to-face actions such as mocking, insults, put-downs, and antagonism used in rejective aggression; threats of physical harm typical to dominance aggression; and rumors and other indirect/secretive communications often used in relational aggression.
written/expressive: applicable to all three types of aggression, includes words and images, such as pictures and videos, on paper, on objects, or on social media.
exclusion: applicable to relational aggression, includes actions that are generally indirect, secretive, and nonconfrontational in which peers of a target are asked, influenced, or pressured into severing their friendship with the target. Exclusion behaviors often include direct communications to the target that express or show that the target is no longer a member of the peer group. Exclusion in the context of bullying generally takes the form of a “campaign” in which the aggressor recruits members of the target’s peer group to ignore, avoid, or distance themselves from the target and to explicitly communicate to the target that the target is no longer a member of the peer group. Please note that there is a difference between not including a person in an activity or in a peer group and an organized campaign of exclusion initiated by an individual to intentionally get members of the target’s peer group to stop being friends with the target. Not including a peer who is not part of a group of friends at the lunch table, in a group activity, or in a social event is not relational aggression (though it may be rejective aggression).

Updated: 12/6/23

The Emotional Harm Caused by Aggression

The emotional harm caused by aggression involves feelings of peer rejection and diminished self-esteem. However, these feelings can be accompanied by other forms of emotional harm depending upon the type of aggression used:

Dominance aggression can cause fear of and anxiety about being physically harmed.
Rejective aggression can cause a sense of being flawed due to a personal characteristic.
Relational aggression can cause feelings of social isolation and abandonment by friends.

These different types of harm are important to understand in order to ensure that targets receive appropriate support.

Updated: 12/6/23

Who Can Determine When Bullying Occurs

Because aggression that causes harm can be indistinguishable from aggression that doesn’t cause harm, only the target can determine when bullying occurs. Bullying is determined based on how the target feels, not how the aggressor acts or how the target reacts.

Adults cannot determine bullying from either the behavior of the aggressor or the visible reaction of the target. An aggressor may direct identical behaviors at multiple targets, but not every target will be harmed. And targets may get angry or appear bothered by the aggression but are not necessarily harmed. Conversely, some targets who appear to be completely unaffected by aggression may be significantly harmed.

Adults can, however, deduce when a target is likely being harmed from observable aggression based on the target’s social position in the peer group, the size of the target’s social network, and whether or not a target embraces unmonitored social time or tries to avoid it. In addition, adults can suspect that harm has started to occur to a student targeted by aggression based on observed changes like a decline in grades, lack of sleep, complaints of physical ailments, a sudden desire not to be with peers (especially during unmonitored social time), and a change in demeanor. Since these changes can also indicate some other emotional event in the student’s life, adults need to get confirmation from the target. However, these indicators do provide an opportunity for adults to engage in a conversation with the student to determine if bullying is occurring (or, of course, if the student has some other issue for which adults can provide help and support).

That targets are the only ones who can determine if bullying is occurring is a concept that some adults may find challenging to accept due to the traditional way bullying problems are handled. In traditional approaches where bullying is addressed through punitive consequences, having a target determine when bullying is occurring means that the target, not an administrator, would then determine when a peer is to be punished. That is why traditional approaches require an investigation first by an administrator before a determination on bullying is made. However, since punitive consequences are ineffective and frequently counterproductive in stopping bullying and are not used in this Method, administrators should feel comfortable and confident relying on the word of the target to determine whether bullying is occurring.

That is not to say that investigations are never necessary. An issue that has been ongoing for some time and involves multiple aggressors may require an investigation to determine the full extent of aggressor and supporter involvement. And determining the roles different students are playing in the bullying (aggressor, supporter, bystander) is important for getting the aggression to stop. However, a target who admits to being harmed has confirmed that bullying is occurring and thus has rendered an investigation for the purpose of establishing that fact unnecessary.

Updated: 12/6/23

Principles of Target Empowerment: Reacting vs. Responding

Aggression can provide a social benefit to the aggressor no matter how the target reacts. However, a target’s reaction to aggression can make the aggression even more successful at providing a benefit. For example, a target who gets visibly upset at an insult can make the aggression more entertaining for observing peers, earning increased admiration for the aggressor. And a reaction that increases the social benefit increases the likelihood that the aggression will be repeated. Dominance aggression actually requires the target to react in a certain way (showing fear or explicit deference) in order to be successful.

However, students can learn ways to thoughtfully respond to aggression to reduce or eliminate the benefits, improving the chances that it won’t be repeated. Some responses can even cause the aggression to result in a social status cost to the aggressor, which generally guarantees that it won’t be repeated.

In dominance aggression, aggressors use threats and intimidation to instill fear in a target. The normal and natural reaction of a target when faced with a threat of harm is to exhibit fear and/or show deference, which allows the aggressor to gain the respect of those watching. If the target responds to dominance aggression by not showing fear, even if the target is afraid, the aggressor does not earn respect from the peer audience. An aggressor using dominance aggression against a target who appears unaffected can actually lose social status because the target is showing peers that the aggressor is not someone to fear and whose intimidation can be ignored.
In rejective aggression, aggressors use insults, mocking, or antagonism to indicate a difference between the aggressor and target by diminishing or demeaning a particular characteristic. In this type of aggression, the aggressor may be trying to appear clever and entertaining to peers. When an insult, for example, makes peers laugh, the aggressor may gain social status no matter how the target reacts. If the target reacts by getting visibly upset, the aggression may be even more entertaining to peers and increase the social benefit. However, if the target responds by joining in and laughing or explicitly showing that the aggression is not hurtful, the aggressor may not gain status and can even lose status.
In relational aggression, the aggressor starts a campaign to get members of the target’s peer group to stop being friends with the target. When a target becomes aware of such a campaign, her natural reaction is to hope or pretend that it isn’t happening. This inaction allows the aggressor to conduct the bullying campaign without interference until the target is left socially isolated. A target must respond by taking immediate action to find out who is behind the campaign and why. The target can then try to address any conflict that may have caused the campaign or try to understand the reason for the aggression and diffuse it. The target can also ask participants to help by not joining the side of the aggressor.

Although thoughtful responses to aggression can reduce or eliminate the social benefits and the likelihood the aggression will be repeated, not every target will be able to respond in these ways. The nature and composition of the peer group can also make these responses ineffective. Some students may need to practice the responses a few times before they see results.

Please note that ignoring aggression is not considered a thoughtful response. A thoughtful response requires an acknowledgment of the aggression and a follow-up action by the target, one that deprives the aggressor of a social benefit.

Target empowerment techniques are described and illustrated in detail in the student guide, What YOU Can Do About Bullying by Max and Zoey. For more information, please see the MATERIALS page.

Updated: 12/6/23

Principles of Bystander Empowerment

Like targets, bystanders can also take action to prevent and stop bullying. Not only can they change the outcome of a bullying incident, but they also can make aggression less accepted within the group itself. A bystander who intervenes on behalf of a target sends a message to others that the target is someone who is valued and that the aggression is unacceptable. Intervention can also increase the social status of the target, particularly if the peer who intervened is very popular. The target may be seen as a friend of the peer who intervened, and any further aggression against the target would carry greater social risk.

Bystander intervention, however, is risky for the student taking action. Students who intervene may lose status or may become a target themselves. Even though bystanders may not like what they see, these risks make them reluctant to act. They don’t want to be seen by peer group members as taking the side of a lower-status target against a higher-status aggressor or taking action that is contrary to what is acceptable to the group.

Bystanders can intervene in two general ways: directly and indirectly. Direct intervention is when a bystander interrupts an instance of aggression in progress and asks the aggressor to stop. The bystander acts as a defender, visible to the target, aggressor, and those watching or participating. Direct intervention is confrontational and carries significant social risk and risk of becoming a target because the bystander is generally siding with a less popular student against a more popular student. Because of this risk, adults should never ask a student to directly intervene in a bullying problem. Direct intervention is a personal choice that only a student can make.

Indirect intervention is far less risky than direct intervention. In indirect intervention, bystanders do not publicly confront the aggressor with peers watching. Instead, the bystander takes action in private or quietly works to increase the social status of the target. Examples of indirect intervention include interrupting and stopping bullying in progress but pretending to be unaware it is happening, talking to the aggressor in private to let him know the bullying is unacceptable, and befriending the target and including the target in social activities.

Bystander empowerment is described and illustrated in detail in the student guide, What YOU Can Do About Bullying by Max and Zoey. For more information, please visit the MATERIALS page.

Updated: 12/6/23

Students are Both Aggressors and Targets

Bullying is not “Being Mean”

To an observer, the aggressions that students use to positively affect social status can appear to be mean and cruel. However, it is critical to remember that cruelty is generally not the intent. The aggressor is not thinking about the effect the behavior has on the target; the aggressor is focused on how the peer audience perceives the behavior and if the aggression provides a status benefit.

Updated: 12/6/23

Targets Simply Want the Aggression to Stop

In most cases, targets of aggression do not want aggressors to receive punitive consequences. Targets simply want the aggression to stop. Stopping the aggression provides a measure of relief in that the target is not subjected to overt indications of peer rejection. In addition, targets do not want others to be aware that the aggression is causing harm, which is what punishing the aggressor implies.

Updated: 12/6/23

Targets Become Preoccupied with Harmful Aggression

A bullied student will be preoccupied with the aggression and the feeling of diminished social status and will be unable to focus on schoolwork and other activities. All students are concerned with their social status, and those who are not feeling secure in their status due to aggression will focus on trying to counter it in some way at the expense of other priorities. This makes the rapid surfacing and resolution of bullying issues critical to the health and education of targets.

Updated: 12/6/23

“Antisocial” Students May Simply Be Seeking Acceptance

A student who has a strong need for peer approval may engage in a steady stream of aggressive behaviors in an attempt to positively affect social status and self-esteem. A student who may be the target of aggression in one social group, including family members at home, may try to compensate for decreased self-esteem and a low social status by targeting everyone in a different social or peer group. Those perceived as antisocial in school may be trying to compensate for rejection experienced outside of school. This concept is important in that resolving a behavioral or bullying issue in school may require action to get the aggression directed at the student outside of school to stop. If the aggression in school provides a social benefit to the student that is compensating for harm caused by the aggression of others outside of school, partnership between educators and parents will be critical to effecting a behavioral change.

Update: 12/6/23

Bystander Participation is Driven by Self-Interest

Bystanders who participate in the aggression directed by one student against another or who passively observe but don’t intervene, even when the target is visibly upset, are acting in their own self-interest. Bystanders who participate are using the opportunity to gain the approval of the aggressor or to ensure that the aggressor does not make them a target. Bystanders are indicating to the peer audience that they associate themselves with and support the higher-status aggressor and not the lower-status target. The students who don’t intervene are doing so for the same reason, just implicitly. While some students who witness bullying may not like what they are seeing and may feel empathy for the target, they may not act due to the social cost that standing up to the more popular aggressor would incur.

Updated: 12/6/23

Students May Side with Popular Aggressors Over Friends

Sustained Aggression Normalizes the Treatment of a Target

A target who is repeatedly subjected to aggression by a peer group will become more rejected by that group over time. Eventually, peers will view the target as deserving of the treatment. They will view the aggression directed at the target simply as the normal way the group interacts with this person. Large peer groups such as a class will commonly have one or two such chronically targeted students.

Updated: 12/6/23

Characteristics of Targets Influence Peer Group Preferences

The personal characteristics of chronically targeted students will influence peer group preferences in that peer group members will not want to be associated with individuals who have the same characteristics as the targets. Members of the peer group will direct aggression at anyone with a similar characteristic. For example, a new student who joins the class and shares a characteristic with a chronically targeted student will likely be automatically rejected by the peer group or may have a harder time being accepted and making friends. A new student may feel compelled to direct aggression at the chronically targeted student simply to demonstrate agreement with peers in rejecting that characteristic in order to gain peer acceptance.

Updated: 12/6/23

Students May Not Associate the Concept of Bullying with Their Own Behavior

Students do not always make a connection between bullying discussed as a concept and the aggression that occurs within their peer groups. This occurs for a variety of reasons:

Students direct aggression at many individuals in order to gain social status; their focus is not on how the individuals are feeling but on whether they themselves are benefitting socially.
Targets often pretend to be unaffected by the aggression, so aggressors don’t always have a clear, visible indicator that their behavior is causing harm.
The concept that identical behavior can result in harm in some cases but not others can be difficult for some students to grasp. From the perspective of the aggressor, the aggression directed at an unharmed student is no different in action and intent from the same behavior directed at a student who suffers harm.
When aggression is directed by members of a peer group at individuals outside the group, the aggression is viewed as assertion of the group identity (again, the effect on the target is not considered).
When students direct aggression at a target over a long period of time, students may view the aggression simply as the normal way to treat the target. Sustained bullying desensitizes students to their own behavior. Students who vocally profess to being strongly against bullying will not recognize that their own aggression toward a long-time target is bullying.
The term “bullying” is frequently misused to describe aggression that results in “bothering” (annoyance, aggravation, frustration, etc.) and not harm. Students need to be taught the difference between the two, specifically that being bothered by aggression is not the same as being harmed by it. Students who proclaim to be “bullied” by another in the presence of peers or directly accuse a peer of bullying them are more likely to mean that they are “bothered” and not emotionally harmed. Those who truly feel rejected by peers tend not to acknowledge that rejection in front of peers.

Updated: 12/6/23

Aggression Initiated Due to a Positive Characteristic

A positive characteristic of a student, such as a talent, an achievement, a desirable material possession, or an attractive attribute can cause that student to be targeted by aggression. A positive characteristic can boost the status of the student or can disrupt the established social order and may make other students feel that their own status is threatened.

Positive characteristics often drive relational aggression campaigns. The positive characteristic of the target makes the aggressor fearful that her own popularity and friendships are at risk due to the increased social status that this characteristic provides the target. In response to these fears, an aggressor may launch a campaign to get others to abandon their friendships with the target, leaving the target socially isolated and with a diminished social status. This decrease in the social status of the target reassures the aggressor that her social position is secure. A relational aggression campaign that is initiated due to a sudden positive change—such as the target winning a contest, getting a fancy new car, or being named as the captain of a sports team—can be extremely disorienting to the target in terms of the sudden loss of friendships and isolation.

Updated: 12/6/23

Relational Aggression Due to a Personal Offense

One driver of relational aggression campaigns is when the aggressor feels offended by the target but does not want to address the offense directly. Instead, the aggressor uses relational aggression to get back at or punish the target. One reason the aggressor avoids direct confrontation is fear that doing so may result in a loss of the friendship. The aggressor views the use of relational aggression as safer since it provides a feeling of justice while minimizing the risk of friendship loss. While the aggressor in these cases may only intend to temporarily affect the friendships of the target, it can result in permanent social damage.

Updated: 12/6/23

Lack of Adult Intervention can be Interpreted as Tacit Approval

Educators Can Influence Student Aggression

Educators’ own reactions to students, specifically expressions of annoyance or negative feelings, can result in a student becoming a target of aggression. When students see an educator acting negatively toward a student, they may perceive that as permission to do the same. Students who seek that educator’s approval may also target the student because they think that doing so will earn that approval. Educators need to take great care to avoid making any personal negative expressions about a student.

Updated: 12/6/23

Why Punishment for Bullying is Ineffective and Sometimes Counterproductive

Traditional approaches to addressing bullying problems often rely on punitive consequences to compel the aggressor to change behavior. The use of punitive consequences is often based on the erroneous notion of “intent to harm” and that aggressive behavior may appear to be mean and cruel to an observer. But because punishment as a solution to bullying is based on a flawed understanding of the problem, punishment as a solution is likewise flawed and ineffective and often makes the problem worse. Please see related articles in the “Problems with Traditional Approaches” section of the Information Center for more on the problems with traditional definitions of bullying.

Punishment as a consequence for bullying is ineffective for the following reasons:

Since aggressors are not using aggression to intentionally harm targets, a punitive consequence is viewed by the aggressor (and his parents) as unfair and unjust. An aggressor may legitimately (from his perspective) claim innocence, convince his parents of this fact, and enlist their support against the school’s administration.
An aggressor who directs identical aggression at multiple individuals, including friends, or sees peers engaging in identical behaviors, views punishment as inconsistent and unreasonable.
Punishment that is based on the word of the target makes the target responsible for the punishment and can result in retaliation by the aggressor and peers against the target.
In a peer group with a high level of acceptance of aggression and where the target has been chronically bullied and aggression has been normalized, peers view the aggressor’s punishment as unjust and blame the target, causing a further reduction in status of the target and reinforcing any belief by the peers that the target deserves the aggression.
Punishment can raise awareness of the bullying problem among the peer group, something the target wants to avoid since greater awareness can further reduce social status.
Punishment of the aggressor can actually boost his social status, which provides an incentive to continue the aggression.
Punishment serves as a very strong deterrent to reporting bullying problems because students know that reporting on a peer who then gets punished will result in retaliation or a social cost.

When punitive consequences are used to address bullying problems, no one in the process—aggressors, targets, parents, or educators—is satisfied with the result. Aggressors consider punishment an injustice. Targets, who have lost social status from bullying, experience an even greater reduction in status from getting a peer in trouble. Targets frequently suffer increased bullying when the aggressor and his friends retaliate for the punishment. Parents of the aggressor generally defend their children and view the punishment as an injustice. Parents of the target, who may feel initial relief for getting a measure of justice for their child, become frustrated that the bullying doesn’t stop or gets worse for their child. And educators are left to deal with a more complicated problem that is harder and more time-consuming to solve. In short, punitive consequences serve the needs of no one and make the problem worse for everyone.

The solution is to replace punitive consequences with constructive consequences, where the aggressor is given an opportunity to avoid any consequence if the behavior stops but gets a consequence that results in a loss of social status among peers if the behavior continues. Leveraging the driver of aggression to get it to stop is an effective approach that is satisfactory to everyone involved in the process. Please see the “Modern Strategies” section of the Information Center for more information on constructive consequences.

Updated: 12/7/23