Why Bullying Investigations Fail Aggressors and Targets Alike

This will sound like a setup to a joke, so please bear with me. Two students walk into the principal’s office. One points at the other and says, “He’s bullying me!” and the other says, “No I’m not!” Who’s right? They both are. But the principal, as required by policy, launches an investigation and then announces her finding. Who benefits? Neither student. And the principal has likely made the problem a whole lot worse. So let’s unpack this. Why were both students right? Research has shown that aggressors often don’t always realize they are bullying and harming the target. Students can, in one moment, steadfastly declare their opposition to bullying, then, in the next moment, engage in behavior that fits the definition. From the perspective of the aggressor in the principal’s office, the interactions with the target are not bullying. So the aggressor is right. The target, of course, knows when he is being bullied; he feels rejected by his peers, and he is unable to get the behavior to stop. And leveling a charge of bullying by one peer against another always carries a cost to the accuser’s social standing. Students will do anything to avoid actions that negatively affect them socially. A student who comes forward to say he is being bullied has reached a point where the social cost is worth incurring in order to get help in stopping the bullying. So the target is also right in the scenario above. How does the bullying investigation fail both students? If the principal rules in favor of the aggressor, that no bullying is occurring, the opportunity to help the aggressor understand that his behavior is harmful and how he can find other, constructive ways to increase his social status has been lost. And the aggressor has just been given the green light to continue to use the same harmful behaviors against the target, and others as well. Further, consider how traumatic a finding for the aggressor is to the target. The target has come to a person in a position of authority and has essentially said, “I’m being harmed, I need help.” The authority has responded to the target, saying, “We don’t believe you, we’re not going to help you. See you tomorrow.” Imagine the target’s feeling of hopelessness and horror. If the principal finds for the target, that bullying is occurring, she will likely level a punitive consequence against the aggressor. This often boosts the social status of the aggressor among peers, turns friends of the aggressor against the target, and will likely cause the aggressor to retaliate against the target for this perceived injustice. Either way, the problem will get worse. So what should happen? A bullying issue reported to the principal is an opportunity for both the aggressor and the target. Given the social cost that the target will incur for accusing a peer of bullying, the principal can be confident in believing the target, and has an obligation to get the behavior to stop. The principal can get the aggression to stop by informing the aggressor that harm is occurring and giving the aggressor an opportunity to stop in order to avoid a consequence, one that would deprive him of cherished social time with peers. The principal can use the situation as a teaching opportunity for the aggressor, to help him understand how his behavior is harming another student and how to redirect the need for increased social status to more constructive and positive ways. Handled in this fashion, both students benefit, and principal has resolved the problem.