The Erroneous Notion of the “Power Imbalance” in Bullying

By Ari Magnusson

The notion of a “power imbalance” is one of the most problematic errors in the definition of bullying. This notion, which was first proposed by researcher Dan Olweus decades ago and has been included in definitions of bullying by academics ever since, posits that bullying involves an imbalance of power, such as physical strength, which renders the target unable to stop it.

This idea is wrong. There is no power that is out of balance that allows one child to bully another. If a power imbalance is the problem, then, logically, it would follow that the solution to the problem is to balance the power. If “physical strength” is the power that is out of balance, then the solution should be to send the target to the gym to lift weights until he or she could bench press the same amount as the aggressor. But any reasonable person knows that the solution to a child being bullied by intimidation is not more gym time.

An aggressor is able to bully a target for two reasons. First, the target doesn’t understand the drivers of bullying and takes the aggression personally, feels flawed and rejected, and suffers emotional harm. The second reason is that targets of bullying often react to the aggression, making it more likely to be repeated, instead of thoughtfully responding to it, which can stop it. Both of these problems can be fixed with bullying-specific social emotional learning, a core component of the CirclePoint Bullying Prevention Program.

This erroneous notion of a power imbalance has real and damaging policy implications. In my research a couple of years ago, I came across a high school where, in following the accepted definition of bullying, the administrators developed a list of 10 “powers” that could be out of balance. The administrators decided that if 3 or more “powers” were out of balance between the aggressor and target, then bullying was occurring. I don’t remember all the powers the school identified, but one of them was “wealth.” If a difference in parental income is a reason why a child is bullied, is the solution to tell the parents of the target that in order to help their child they need to make more money? Of course not. But this school had an ineffective policy due to this erroneous notion of the power imbalance.

The academics who created and sustained this problem are starting to acknowledge it. However, for reasons that I can only assume have to do with professional courtesy, they refuse to directly refute earlier peer-reviewed findings and instead try to nudge scholarship toward the truth. So you don’t have to delve into the literature (though if you wish, you can start with Educational Psychology Review (2011) 23:479–499), I’ll summarize the evolution in the definition of “power imbalance” and how educators who have to deal with bullying in schools on a daily basis collectively responded:

Academia 1970s: Bullying involves a power imbalance such as physical strength!
Educators: But what about bullying involving insults and friendship harming?
Academia 1980s: Bullying involves a power imbalance that can include a variety of powers!
Educators: In trying to resolve actual bullying problems, we don’t really perceive any of these “powers” you mention.
Academia 1990s: Bullying involves a power imbalance; however, the powers may not be easily perceptible! Look harder!
Educators: We’re looking really, really hard, and we still don’t see them.
Academia 2000s: Bullying involves a power imbalance, and these powers may in fact be nearly impossible to perceive. But they’re there!
Educators: Are you sure? We really don’t see any.
Academia 2010s: Of course we’re sure! Just look at all the research that says so!
Educators: But didn’t you write all that research?

Bullying prevention practitioners today recognize that academia has it wrong. However, we continue to struggle against these ingrained definitions containing references to “power imbalances” that are used in places such as stopbullying[dot]gov, considered reference points for school and district definitions. While academia may be heading in the right direction in acknowledging this mistake—that bullying does not involve a power imbalance and that the notion makes the definition confusing and results in ineffective resolution approaches—the field is moving too slowly. That acknowledgment needs to happen today. Too many bullied children are unable to get the help and support they need due to flawed policies and procedures that are based on inaccurate definitions. We must drop this notion of a “power imbalance” from bullying definitions immediately.