PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Santa Barbara]On: 4 April 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918976320]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School ViolencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306918

Individual and Contextual Factors for Bullying and Peer Victimization:Implications for PreventionAlana M. Vivoloa; Melissa K. Holta; Greta M. Massettia

a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Violence Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Online publication date: 18 March 2011

To cite this Article Vivolo, Alana M. , Holt, Melissa K. and Massetti, Greta M.(2011) 'Individual and Contextual Factors forBullying and Peer Victimization: Implications for Prevention', Journal of School Violence, 10: 2, 201 — 212To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2010.539169URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.539169

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of School Violence, 10:201–212, 2011ISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15388220.2010.539169

COMMENTARIES

Individual and Contextual Factorsfor Bullying and Peer Victimization:

Implications for Prevention

ALANA M. VIVOLO, MELISSA K. HOLT,and GRETA M. MASSETTI

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Division of Violence Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

The Division of Violence Prevention (DVP) at the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) is committed to preventingyouth violence. For the past decade, DVP has supported researchon risk and protective factors associated with youth interpersonalviolence and the development and evaluation of prevention pro-grams. This commentary addresses the findings, relevant themes,and implications of the five empirical articles included within thisspecial issue that come from several CDC-funded Academic Centersfor Excellence (ACEs) on Youth Violence Prevention. This com-mentary also focuses on the social context of bullying and peervictimization with particular emphasis on the influence of contex-tual and school-level indicators. Finally, it summarizes how thefindings presented are consistent with, and can advance, DVP’sresearch and prevention priorities in youth violence.

KEYWORDS youth violence, bullying, peer victimization,contextual factors, prevention

This article is not subject to U.S. Copyright law.Received June 8, 2010; accepted September 1, 2010.The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not neces-

sarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Noauthors have conflicts of interest to report.

Address correspondence to Alana M. Vivolo, Division of Violence Prevention, NationalCenter for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770Buford Hwy., MS F-64, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. E-mail: AVivolo@cdc.gov

201

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

202 A. M. Vivolo et al.

Violence is a significant public health threat in the U.S. It remainsa leading cause of injury, disability, and death for adults and youth(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2009). Further, violencedisproportionately affects our nation’s youth, with homicide being the sec-ond leading cause of death for 10- to 24-year-olds (CDC, 2009). Less severeforms of violence exposure are also very common. For instance, in 2008,nearly 700,000 10- to 24-year-old youth visited emergency rooms with non-fatal injuries due to violence (CDC, 2009) and in 2007, approximately 35%of youth in Grades 9–12 reported being in a physical fight within the lastyear (CDC, 2008).

Youth violence is defined as “the intentional use of physical force orpower, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group orcommunity that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury,death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation” (Dahlberg &Krug, 2002). Research and programs addressing youth violence typicallyinclude persons between the ages of 10 and 24, although patterns of youthviolence can begin in early childhood.

There are many manifestations of youth interpersonal violence, includ-ing, but not limited to, severe physical assault (e.g., homicide), minorphysical assault (e.g., punching, kicking), verbal aggression (e.g., yelling,teasing), indirect or relational aggression (e.g., rumor spreading, stealing),and bullying. While there is much variability in the field as to how bullyingexperiences are defined and measured, a majority of researchers agree thatbullying includes not only physical aggression, but also verbal aggression,including spreading rumors, or social rejection and isolation that is repeatedand over a prolonged period of time and is intended to cause fear, distress,or harm to the victim (Farrington, 1993; Olweus, 1993). In addition, mostresearchers agree that an imbalance of psychological or physical power isnecessary to categorize bullying, with a more powerful child or childrenoppressing less powerful ones (Farrington, 1993; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009;Olweus, 1993). Some researchers also consider sexual harassment to be asubtype of bullying (Ashbaughm & Cornell, 2008). Bullying is a commonform of youth violence (Osofsky & Osofsky, 2001), and in 2009, approx-imately 20% of youth in Grades 9–12 across the United States, who weresurveyed as part of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS),reported being bullied on school property (CDC, 2010a).

The lack of consistent definitions and measurement of bullying acrossstudies makes it difficult to estimate the prevalence of bullying and com-pare findings from different studies. Moving forward, consistent definitionsare necessary in research to uniformly measure risk and protective fac-tors and inform surveillance and prevention efforts. A growing body ofresearch has demonstrated that bullying is associated with negative conse-quences and behavioral, emotional, and physical maladjustment for bullies,victims, and bully-victims (i.e., youth who are both perpetrators and vic-tims). Recent research indicates that youth who bully others display other

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

Contextual Factors for Bullying 203

delinquent behaviors (Prinstein, Boergers, & Vernberg 2001), have pooracademic performance (MacMillan & Hagan, 2004), are more prone totruancy (Ringwalt, Ennett, & Johnson, 2003), are more likely to drop outof school (Berthold & Hoover, 2000), and are more likely to bring weaponsto school (Berthold & Hoover, 2000; Nansel, Overpeck, Haynie, Ruan, &Scheidt, 2003). Victims experience increased feelings of loneliness (Nanselet al., 2001), low self-esteem (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nansel et al., 2001),poor academic performance (Arseneault et al., 2006), depression and sui-cidal ideation and attempts (Klomeck, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, &Gould, 2007). Further evidence suggests that bully-victims exhibit the poor-est functioning compared to youth who are only victims or only bullies (e.g.,Nansel, Craig, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004). Some research also impliesthat the effects of bullying persist into adulthood and produce long-termnegative outcomes such as antisocial behavior, drug use and abuse, andcriminal behavior (Gladstone, Parker, & Malhi, 2006; Hugh-Jones & Smith,1999; Nansel et al., 2001).

Of growing concern is the use of technology as a mechanism for bul-lying. This occurrence, which is referred to as cyberbullying or electronicaggression, is usually defined as intentional and repeated harm inflictedthrough the use of computers, social networking Web sites, cell phones, andother electronic devices (David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2009; Hinduja & Patchin,2009). Research indicates that adolescents experience bullying more oftenin person than online (e.g., Li, 2007), yet experiencing online bullying isoften associated with similar consequences to in-person bullying (Hinduja &Patchin, 2009). In 2007, the National Crime Victimization Survey found that4% of participants reported being a victim of cyberbullying (e.g., anotherstudent posting hurtful information about them on the Internet; havingunwanted contact, including being threatened or insulted, via instant mes-saging by another student) on or off school property during the school year(Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009).

Although bullying and peer victimization can occur anywhere, schoolsconstitute an environment in which these behaviors occur frequently, andin which targeted prevention efforts that could affect large numbers ofyouth could be implemented. School-based bullying and peer victimizationis highly prevalent, affecting nearly one third of youth on a moderate or fre-quent basis (Nansel et al., 2004). In 2007, 32% of students participating in theNational Crime Victimization Survey reported having been bullied at schoolduring the school year. Specifically, 21% of students reported that they weremade fun of; 18% were the subject of rumors; 11% were pushed, shoved,tripped, or spit on; 6% were threatened with harm; 5% were excluded fromactivities on purpose; and 4% said that someone tried to make them dothings they did not want to do and that their property was destroyed onpurpose (Dinkes et al., 2009). This commentary will focus on bullying expe-riences and peer victimization in the school context, including both directand indirect manifestations.

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

204 A. M. Vivolo et al.

CDC’S APPROACH TO YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION

The Division of Violence Prevention (DVP) at CDC focuses on the pri-mary prevention of youth violence. For the past 10 years DVP has fundedthe Academic Centers for Excellence (ACEs) on Youth Violence PreventionProgram. The ACEs utilize a community-based participatory approach tobuild community capacity to implement promising or effective violenceprevention programs in a defined community. With increased communitycapacity, the ACEs are better able to develop tailored youth violence pre-vention approaches, collect and analyze local surveillance data from withinthe community, and foster lasting and mutually beneficial relationships withlocal community partners to prevent youth violence (Massetti & Vivolo, 2010;Vivolo, Matjasko, & Massetti, 2011).

To address the need of preventing youth violence in communities, DVPalso emphasizes the use of the public health approach to inform compre-hensive, evidence-based prevention strategies and programs (Dahlberg &Krug, 2002). The public health approach is a four-step model (see Figure 1)that allows DVP to investigate and fully understand the underlying causesor outcomes of youth violence, while also strengthening resources for theimplementation and dissemination of evidence-based programs.

The first step in the public health approach is to define the breadth andmagnitude of the problem. For example, CDC collects surveillance data thatallows us to answer questions about the frequency of youth violence andassociated trends. The YRBSS, implemented by the Division of Adolescentand School Health at CDC, monitors several physical, emotional, and mentalhealth risk behaviors prevalent among youth. In 2009, YRBSS added an item,

FIGURE 1 The four steps of the public health model used by CDC to investigate youthviolence.Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/PublicHealthApproachTo_ViolencePrevention.htm

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

Contextual Factors for Bullying 205

“During the past 12 months, have you ever been bullied on school property?”to assess bullying-related behaviors within school (CDC, 2010a).

The second step in the public health model involves identifying andassessing risk and protective factors associated with youth violence, tounderstand the factors that precipitate or buffer risk for violent behav-iors. Risk and protective factors exist on all levels of the social ecology(Dahlberg & Krug, 2002), which is why we must consider the complexinterplay between individual (e.g., age, history of child maltreatment, sexualorientation), relationship (e.g., peer group and family attitudes toward vio-lence), community (e.g., school climate), and societal factors (e.g., socialnorms around the acceptability of bullying behavior) that put youth atrisk for experiencing or perpetrating youth violence. For instance, CDC,in collaboration with external researchers, has sought to understand theshared risk factors between forms of bullying and sexual violence in orderto develop effective, evidence-based programs that may impact severalforms of violence, specifically bullying, sexual harassment, and sexual vio-lence (Basile, Espelage, Rivers, McMahon, & Simon, 2009; Espelage, Stein,Basile, & Hamburger, 2009). By understanding these factors, CDC canidentify priority areas where prevention efforts should be focused.

The next step in the public health model is to develop and evaluateprevention strategies and programs. Comprehensive, rigorous evaluations ofprevention strategies allow for careful examination of the potential impactof such strategies on youth violence outcomes, including an understandingof the mechanisms by which potential strategies influence behaviors. Forexample, CDC is currently funding a multisite effectiveness evaluation of theSecond Step: Student Success Through Prevention program, which targetsthe shared risk and protective factors for bullying, sexual harassment, andsexual violence. The Second Step curriculum (Committee for Children, 2008)is a school-based program that emphasizes the role of peer group norms,attitudes, and behavior in the initiation and maintenance of bullying andother forms of violence.

The final step in the public health model is to assure widespread dis-semination and adoption. After a program has been shown to be effective,it must be widely implemented and disseminated to the most appropriateaudience. In 2010, DVP launched the STRYVE—Striving to Reduce YouthViolence Everywhere—Initiative (CDC, 2010b). STRYVE is a guide for com-munities, states, and the country to use in developing and implementingevidence-based programs and policies to prevent youth violence.

The public health model thus provides a framework for collecting sys-tematic data on bullying, identifying modifiable risk and protective factors totarget in prevention efforts, developing and evaluating prevention programs,and building community capacity to adopt and implement evidence-basedprograms. The articles in this special issue of the Journal of School Violenceprovide an important set of insights to elucidate the context in which

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

206 A. M. Vivolo et al.

bullying and peer victimization occurs. There is much to understand andlearn about youth violence, but more specifically, about bullying and itseffects on youth. This special issue of the Journal of School Violencerepresents an important step in understanding how individual and othercontextual factors play a role in influencing bullying and peer victimizationinvolvement and their correlates among youth. The findings of these arti-cles, all of which emerged from ACEs, support our growing understandingof the importance of both individual and contextual factors when addressingbullying and peer victimization.

THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE

Despite the consistency across articles in the focus on bullying and peervictimization, the articles reflect variability in terminology and the concep-tualization and measurement of these behaviors. For example, Waasdorp,Pas, O’Brennan, and Bradshaw (2011) utilize the term indirect victimiza-tion to account for victimization experiences such as rumor spreadingand stealing, while others (e.g., Green, Dunn, Johnson, & Molnar, 2011;Johnson et al., 2011) utilize the term nonphysical bullying to accountfor similar behaviors (i.e., teasing, electronic bullying, rumors, unwantedsexual comments or gestures, stealing). In addition, the forms of bully-ing and peer victimization experiences examined across the five empiricalarticles include cyberbullying (i.e., sending mean emails, text messages,or posting something about youth on the Internet; Green et al., 2011;Johnson et al., 2011; Waasdorp et al., 2011), teasing or spreading rumors(Gendron, Williams, & Guerra, 2011; Green et al.; Johnson et al.; Waasdorpet al.), and shoving or pushing (Gendron et al., 2011; Leff et al.,2011).

Although there is variation in terminology and measurement used, thesearticles make it apparent that bullying experiences are prevalent in schoolsand that students and staff are exposed to victimization and perpetrationat high rates. A unique aspect of these articles is the focus on school-level indicators and other contextual factors associated with bullying andpeer victimization. Research on school-level indicators and other contex-tual factors has been expanding, yet it is a newer area of focus in thefield. The articles in this special issue support the notion that exploring therelationship of these factors is key to addressing bullying and peer victim-ization within schools and may influence the implementation and adoptionof evidence-based programs.

For example, articles documented an association between bullyingexperiences and the several school-level indicators such as sense of belong-ing to and safety at school (Waasdorp et al., 2011), the belief that bullies aredisliked (Waasdorp et al.), and the availability of counselors (Green et al.,

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

Contextual Factors for Bullying 207

2011). Waasdorp and colleagues’ finding that victims of bullying reportedless school belonging and felt less safe at school provides an important con-nection between victimization, feelings of safety, and school connectedness.Research indicates that school connectedness can be a protective factor forhigh-risk youth (e.g., Resnick et al., 1997); these connections suggest the rel-evance of enhancing protective elements in the school environment. Greenand colleagues’ findings suggest that the accessibility and use of a counselorin schools is an important school-level indicator of bullying and a poten-tial influencer of bullying outcomes, such as depression. This illustrates theimportance of broad accessibility of adults to students for supervision andsupport.

It is important to extend our understanding of school context by devel-oping a more nuanced understanding of the processes through which schoolcharacteristics influence bullying experiences. Given the controversy (seeGendron et al., 2011 for details) surrounding the nature of the relation-ship between self-esteem and bullying (Olweus, 1994; O’Moore & Kirkham,2001), Gendron and colleagues’ longitudinal findings suggest that high self-esteem is a risk factor for bullying perpetration when it is associated withnegative perceptions of school climate. These results highlight nuancesin the interaction between individual factors and school factors and thatresearch must explore these factors simultaneously.

The articles included in this special issue raise several points of discus-sion relating to (a) the specific strategies schools might implement; (b) at-riskpopulations for involvement in bullying, including sexual minority youth;(c) the possible barriers to adoption of evidence-based approaches; and(d) strategies for the evaluation of prevention efforts.

Strategies for Schools

The various indicators assessed in these articles identify potential targetsfor school-wide prevention strategies. For example, the findings from Greenet al. (2011) suggest increasing the number and accessibility of school mentalhealth counselors. In addition, prevention approaches and strategies thatimprove school support systems, school safety, and school climate (Greenet al.; Waasdorp et al., 2011), and address the social norms surrounding thepopularity of bullies (Waasdorp et al.) may be promising approaches.

Addressing At-Risk Populations

The findings from the special issue also highlight the need to address bullyingin marginalized and at-risk youth. For instance, Johnson and colleagues’ (2011)results suggest that sexual minority females who have been victimized areat particularly high risk for negative emotional consequences of bullying.

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

208 A. M. Vivolo et al.

This implies that prevention efforts that minimize the victimization of sexualminority youth are needed.

Barriers to Adoption

The school-level indicators and other contextual factors explored in the spe-cial issue also have implications for the implementation and adoption ofevidence-based approaches. For example, schools in which staff and stu-dents feel lower levels of belonging (e.g., Waasdorp et al., 2011) might beless interested in devoting efforts to evidence-based bullying prevention pro-grams. As seen in Gendron et al. (2011), the interaction between individual(i.e., self-esteem) and school-level (i.e., school climate) indicators predictedbullying perpetration. Thus, it is also important to think about how differ-ent contexts (e.g., peers, classrooms), in addition to schools, affect bullyingand peer victimizations experiences, and how these different levels interactwhen encouraging schools to adopt a particular evidence-based program orset of strategies.

Evaluation of Prevention Efforts

Effective evaluations of school-based prevention programs require the useof reliable and valid measurement strategies that are developed in collab-oration with key stakeholders and community partners. Leff et al. (2011)argue that measures of the classroom environment, coupled with an assess-ment of student noncompliant behaviors, could help determine whetherclassroom-based prevention initatives are successful in changing aspects ofschool climate that foster or exacebate bullying and peer aggression. Inaddition, schools can utilize community partnerships in order to implementand evaluate the best evidence-based approach for their particular school.For instance, Leff et al. describe the process through which partnershipswith community members and teachers helped shape the measurementdevelopment process. This participatory approach can provide collabora-tive opportunities for developing and implementing relevant and usefulevidence-based assessment tools, and assure interventions are consistentwith community values.

It is also important to use measurement tools and strategies that havestrong reliability and validity when evaluating programs. The inconsistencyin terminology and measurement is compounded by the lack of a “gold stan-dard” measurement tool to assess behaviors characterized as bullying and/orpeer victimization. The discrepancies in reports of school safety, belonging,and exposure to bullying between school staff and students reported byWaasdorp et al. (2011) emphasize the need for accurate measurement, andthe value of obtaining data from multiple reporters. Furthermore, Leff et al.

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

Contextual Factors for Bullying 209

(2011) highlight the value of observational approaches in providing objectivemeasures of student behaviors, teacher behaviors, and school climate.

CONCLUSION

The articles included in this special issue shed light on issues of bullying andpeer victimization. These articles have several strengths, which include: theuse of longitudinal data to explore the school-level predictors of bullying(Gendron et al., 2011); an in-depth look at bullying with marginalized, at-risk youth (Johnson et al., 2011); an exploration of the processes by whichbullying interacts with school-level indicators (Gendron et al.; Green et al.,2011); and the use of several reporting methods, not exclusively youth self-report (Leff et al., 2011; Waasdorp et al., 2011). Although all forms of bullyingmay not occur primarily on school grounds (e.g., cyberbullying), schools canhelp to regulate bullying behaviors by modifying several of the variablesmentioned throughout these five empirical articles and in this commentary.

REFERENCES

Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E.(2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problemsin young children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics, 118,130–138. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2388

Ashbaughm, L. P., & Cornell, D. G. (2008). Sexual harassment and bullyingbehaviors in sixth-graders. Journal of School Violence, 7 , 21–38. doi:10.1300/

J202v07n02_03Basile, K. C., Espelage, D. L., Rivers, I., McMahon, P. M., & Simon, T. R. (2009).

The theoretical and empirical links between bullying behavior and malesexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 336–347.doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.001

Berthold, K. A., & Hoover, J. H. (2000). Correlates of bullying and victimiza-tion among intermediate students in the midwestern USA. School PsychologyInternational, 21, 65–78. doi:10.1177/0143034300211005

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Youth risk behavioralsurveillance—United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57 ,1–131.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Web-based Injury StatisticsQuery and Reporting System (WISQARS) [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010a). Youth risk behavioralsurveillance—United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59,1–142.

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

210 A. M. Vivolo et al.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010b). STRYVE—Striving toReduce Youth Violence Everywhere—Initiative. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from:http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/STRYVE

Committee for Children. (2008). Second step: Student success through prevention.Seattle, WA. Retrieved from: http://www.cfchildren.org/programs/ssp/ms

Dahlberg, L. L, & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence: A global public health problem. InE. G. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), Worldreport on violence and health (pp. 1–21). Geneva, Switzerland: World HealthOrganization.

David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2009). Electronic media and youth violence: ACDC issue brief for researchers. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.

Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety:2008 (NCES No. 2009-022/NCJ No. 226343). Washington, DC: National Centerfor Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department ofEducation, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.Department of Justice.

Espelage, D. L., Stein, N., Basile, K., & Hamburger, M. (2009, September). Middleschool bullying and sexual violence victimization/perpetration. Workshopconducted at the National Sexual Assault Conference, Alexandria, VA.

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry (Ed.),Crime and Justice (Vol. 17, pp. 381–458). Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bully-ing and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Oslo, Norway: CampbellCollaboration.

Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An analysis of bullyingamong students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normativebeliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10, 150–164.

Gladstone, G. L., Parker, G. B., & Malhi, G. S. (2006). Do bullied children becomeanxious and depressed adults? A cross-sectional investigation of the correlatesof bullying and anxious depression. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,194, 201–208. doi:10.1097/01.nmd.0000202491.99719.c3

Green, J. G., Dunn, E. C., Johnson, R. M., & Molnar, B. E. (2011). A multilevel inves-tigation of the association between school context and adolescent nonphysicalbullying. Journal of School Violence, 10, 133–149.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimiza-tion and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectionalstudies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41,441–455. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00629

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing andresponding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith, K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects ofbullying on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology,69, 141–158. doi:10.1348/000709999157626

Johnson, R. M., Kidd, J. D., Dunn, E. C., Green, J. G., Corliss, H. L., & Bowen,D. (2011). Associations between caregiver support, bullying, and depressivesymptomatology among sexual minority and heterosexual girls: Results fromthe 2008 Boston Youth Survey. Journal of School Violence, 10, 185–200.

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

Contextual Factors for Bullying 211

Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007).Bullying depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child Psychology, 46 , 40–49. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18

Leff, S. S., Thomas, D. E., Shapiro, E. S., Paskewich, B., Wilson, K., Necowitz-Hoffman, B., & Jawad, A. F. (2011). Developing and validating a newclassroom climate observation assessment tool. Journal of School Violence, 10,165–184.

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005

MacMillan, R., & Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood:Adolescent victimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in laterlife. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 127–158. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2004.01402001.x

Massetti, G. M., & Vivolo, A. M. (2010). Achieving public health impact onyouth violence prevention through community-research partnerships. Progressin Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 4.3,243–251. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2010.0001

Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J. (2004).Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors andpsychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158,730–736. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.8.730

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Haynie, D. L., Ruan, W. J., & Scheidt, P. C. (2003).Relationships between bullying and violence among U.S. youth. Archives ofPediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157 , 348–353.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., &Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence andassociation with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 285, 2094–2100. Retrieved from http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/16/2094

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. NewYork, NY: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims andan effective school-based intervention program. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.),Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). New York, NY: Plenum.

O’Moore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullyingbehavior. Aggressive Behavior, 27 , 269–283. doi:10.1002/ab.1010

Osofsky, H. J., & Osofsky, J. D. (2001). Violent and aggressive behaviors in youth:A mental health and prevention perspective. Psychiatry: Interpersonal andBiological Processes, 64, 285–295. doi:10.1521/psyc.64.4.285.18603

Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Overt and relationalaggression in adolescents: Social-psychological adjustment of aggressors andvictims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 479–491. doi:10.1207/

S15374424JCCP3004_05Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M.,

Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from theNational Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 278, 823–832. doi:10.1001/jama.278.10.823

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011

212 A. M. Vivolo et al.

Ringwalt, C. L., Ennett, S., & Johnson, R. (2003). Factors associated with fidelityto substance use prevention curriculum guides in the nation’s middle schools.Health Education & Behavior, 30, 375–391. doi:10.1177/1090198103030003010

Vivolo, A. M., Matjasko, J., & Massetti, G. M. (2011). Mobilizing communities andbuilding capacity for youth violence prevention: The National Academic Centersof Excellence for Youth Violence Prevention. American Journal of CommunityPsychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9419-5

Waasdorp, T. E., Pas, E. T., O’Brennan, L. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011). A multilevelperspective on the climate of bullying: Discrepancies among students, schoolstaff, and parents. Journal of School Violence, 10, 115–132.

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 17:44 4 April 2011