While the poor psychosocial outcomes of young people who have experienced bullying are well known, the harm associated with experiences that do not meet the bullying criteria is not well understood. The aim of this study was to examine the level of harm associated with experiences of peer aggression, as well as bullying, by directly measuring the four elements of intent, perceived harm, repetition and power imbalance that comprise the bullying criteria. The purpose of the study was to establish whether bullying was the most harmful form of peer aggression and whether other types of peer aggression that did not comprise all elements of bullying were comparably harmful. Over 6000 students (aged 11-16) from 10 countries completed a student victimization and aggression questionnaire. Data showed that approximately 50% of participants were not intentionally harmed through peer aggression, although this varied across countries, ranging from 10% in India to 87.5% in Taiwan. In all countries, analyses identified a group that had experienced repeated peer aggression, but with no power imbalance, comparable in size to the bullied group, suggesting that bullying is just "the tip of the iceberg". Victims of bullying self-reported the greatest experiences of harm, although victims of repeated aggression reported comparable harm. The findings show that peer aggression experiences that do not meet the bullying criteria are also rated as harmful by victims. More research is needed to fully understand negative peer interactions that include behaviors outside the scope of the bullying definition, particularly with regard to repeated peer aggression. This study suggests that researchers should consider the level of harm experienced by individuals and avoid terminology such as bullying, while policy makers should place a strong and explicit focus on encompassing a broader realm of harmful peer aggression.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2019.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Child Abuse & Neglect
#3,502
of 3,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#301,280
of 344,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child Abuse & Neglect
#50
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
