The term “bullying” often is defined as behavior toward another that is: (1) aggressive or intentionally harmful; (2) done repeatedly over time; and (3) in the context of an interpersonal relationship marked by an actual or perceived imbalance of power (Olweus, 1993; Olweus & Limber, 2010). The term focuses on the perpetrator’s behavior. The term peer victimization, often used interchangeably with bullying, shifts the focus to the plight of the victim. Peer victimization occurs in the context of relationships or roles that children develop among peers (Gazelle & Ladd, 2002). It is a group process (Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Björkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1996) often reinforced by peers either passively (e.g., not intervening) or actively (e.g., laughing at bullying behavior). Peer support for bullying and the failure of peers to intervene on behalf of victims usually is compounded by ineffective strategies on the part of victims to escape from or cope with bullying and its aversive consequences (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Salmivalli, 2010). The combination of peer- and child-related factors conspires to perpetuate a cycle of victimization, leading some children to become chronically bullied and at risk for negative sequelae (Rudolph, Troop-Gordon, Hessel, & Schmidt, 2011).

The prevalence of children who report being bullied ranges from 20% to 30% (Nansel et al., 2001). Generally, younger children report more peer victimization experiences than adolescents (Whitney & Smith, 1993). However, rates for self-reported bullying remain the same or increase from elementary school through high school, suggesting that as children get older, some are being singled out and bullied more often (Boulton & Underwood, 1992). It is estimated that about 75% to 80% of children are relatively uninvolved in bullying, 10% to 15% are occasionally involved, and 5% to 10% are frequently, chronically bullied (Craig & Pepler, 2003; Craig, Pepler, Murphy, & McCuaig-Edge, 2010). There is also some overlap between bullies and victims, with some children occupying both positions (Solberg, Olweus, & Endresen, 2007). These children typically evince a provocative, impulsive, and emotionally reactive interpersonal style that is thought to compromise their capacity to manage peer conflict situations and lead to being labeled as both a bully and a victim (Schwartz, 2000). Outcomes for the bully–victim subtype typically are worse compared to children who are bullies or victims only (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999), but the prevalence of this subtype is relatively low, estimated to be around 2% for youth in grades 4 to 10 (Solberg et al., 2007).

Bullying can occur in multiple ways: verbally, physically, and relationally (Olweus, 1993). Verbal and physical bullying types are observed more readily as direct forms of aggression. Relational aggression, the act of hurting others’ relationships or hurting others via manipulating relationships, is less easily observed due to the fact it is indirect and more subtle (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). It is thought that boys are more likely to act physically aggressive when bullying and that for girls, bullying is through relational means, such as excluding others or gossiping (Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Brick, 2010). Recently, cyberbullying (i.e., aggressive acts perpetrated by cell phone or the Internet) has emerged as another type of victimization, with consequences similar to that of in-school bullying (Mitchell, Ybarra, & Finkelhor, 2007).

The experience of repeated peer victimization can have harmful effects (see Card, Isaacs, & Hodges, 2007, for a review). Chronic victimization can lead to serious psychosocial maladjustment in childhood and can carry forward into adulthood (Rigby & Slee, 1999; Roth, Coles, & Heimberg, 2002). The probability of having a psychiatric disorder is higher for chronically bullied children and for bully–victims than for children rarely involved in bullying (Kumpulainen, Rasanen, & Puura, 2001). A meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies revealed that chronic victimization is associated significantly with depression, loneliness, social and generalized anxiety, and low self-esteem (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Chronic bully–victims in particular are at risk for depression, anxiety, psychosomatic complaints, eating disorders, and substance abuse (Due et al., 2005; Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpelä, Rantanen, & Laippala, 2000). Additionally, compared to children rarely involved in bullying, chronic bully–victims are more likely to have a psychiatric disorder of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder/conduct disorder, or depression (Kumpulainen et al., 2001). A prospective study by Kim, Leventhal, Koh, and Boyce (2009) indicated that chronically bullied children and bully–victims are at an increased risk of persistent suicidal ideation and behaviors, especially for girls.

In this chapter, we discuss evidence-based interventions for children who are victims of school bullying. We outline effective programs and highlight key features and then describe adaptations to more established evidence-based interventions, including recently developed approaches that are being evaluated. We also cover involvement by parents and teachers in interventions for bullied children followed by strategies for measuring intervention effects. Our chapter concludes with two case examples.

There have been many attempts to reduce occurrences of peer victimization and prevent the problems associated with school bullying. Because there are several mechanisms by which school bullying is caused and maintained, a range of intervention strategies have been suggested. Most focus on the whole school, but some focus on specific groups or individual bullies and victims. Whole-school interventions generally are used as universal prevention programs designed to reduce the students’ involvement in school bullying, whether as bullies or victims. This is a public health approach designed to reducing overall levels of school bullying, but whole-school interventions also are used to address systemic factors that contribute to peer victimization or to promote a more positive school climate as a way to counter school bullying. Thus, it often is recommended that anti-bullying interventions be broad based, multifaceted, and capable of making positive changes to the existing school culture (e.g., Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004). Beginning with the early work of Olweus (1978), the vast majority of outcome studies have involved whole-school programs. We describe three of the more established such programs and then consider recent efforts (e.g., meta-analyses) to review the current status of existing outcome research.

Given that the school environment is where most bullying occurs, teachers are often the first adults to witness peer victimization and thus are ideally situated to influence bullying behavior (Troop-Gordon & Quenette, 2010). As noted earlier, empirically supported anti-bullying programs rely heavily on teacher-implemented lessons and strategies, and the success of those programs is closely tied to level of teacher implementation (Kallestad & Olweus, 2003). Less is known about the level and nature of teacher involvement in the absence of formal bullying prevention programs. Besag (1989) suggested that teachers can help manage the problem of bullying in school by becoming more knowledgeable and cognizant of bullying behaviors. However, many teachers are often unsure of how and when to intervene (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004).

Commonly recommended teacher strategies include enlisting other adults (e.g., principals, parents), supporting the victim, advocating that victims avoid bullies, disciplining bullies, and seeking ways to promote greater empathy for victims among bullies (Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Yoon and Kerber (2003) found that teachers are more likely to get involved in physical and verbal bullying compared to relational bullying. Only one cross-sectional study examined specific strategies teachers use in response to victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). These authors found that teachers’ beliefs about bullying (e.g., bullying is normative) predicted which strategies they were likely to use. Teachers’ endorsement of separating students was predictive of lower levels of peer victimization, whereas ignoring the situation or telling children to avoid bullies was predictive of higher levels of victimization.

Some bully prevention programs directly target teachers’ attitudes and behaviors in an effort to reduce levels of peer victimization (Newman, Horne, & Bartolumucci, 2000). Class-wide, teacher-implemented programs can be used separate from or alongside school-wide approaches. Bully Busters (Newman et al., 2000) is a psychoeducational prevention strategy directed specifically at teachers. This program trains teachers to be aware of bullying, to recognize the bully and the victim, to intervene in instances of bullying, and to assist victims. A secondary goal is to increase teacher self-efficacy in dealing with bullying situations. This is important, as research has shown that teachers who report higher self-efficacy report a greater likelihood of intervening (Yoon, 2004). Published outcomes suggest that Bully Busters is an effective means of increasing teacher knowledge and recognition of bullying behaviors, use of intervention skills, and teacher self-efficacy (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004). There is also some evidence that Bully Busters can have an impact on bullying behavior as measured by disciplinary referrals (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004). A recent study of an abbreviated version of Bully Busters yielded mixed results in terms of changes in students’ bullying behavior but a positive impact on teacher reports of self-efficacy in managing bullying behavior (Bell, Raczynski, & Horne, 2010).

Compared to the critical role that teachers play in established anti-bullying interventions, parent-based interventions are notably lacking in the literature, despite evidence that bullied children are more likely to report concerns to parents than to teachers (e.g., Fekkes, Pipjers, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). Social ecological systems theory would suggest that parents can influence children’s involvement in school bullying and their efforts to cope with peer victimization and other forms of peer conflict (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Swearer & Doll, 2001). For example, there is evidence that bullies are more likely to experience harsh parenting at homes marked by violence and chaos (see Card et al., 2007, for a review). Less clear is the research examining parents’ contribution to children’s level of peer victimization (Veenstra et al., 2005). Card et al. (2007) noted some support for the notion that the relation between parenting and peer victimization is gender specific (e.g., overprotection for boys, coercive parenting behavior for girls). It also appears that family conflict and low parental involvement are risk factors for peer victimization (Jeynes, 2008; Mohr, 2006). Although the number of documented familial correlates of peer victimization is small, there is reason to believe that parenting factors can be protective. For example, supportive (Abecassis, Hartup, Haselager, Scholte, & van Lieshout, 2002; Haynie et al., 2001), involved (Haynie et al., 2001; Nansel et al., 2001), and responsive (Ladd & Ladd, 1998) parenting behaviors have been found to be negatively correlated with peer victimization.

Waasdorp, Bradshaw, and Duong (2011) examined parents’ use of various strategies in response to their child’s victimization. Included were contacting school personnel, talking to their child, talking to the bully, talking to the bully’s parents, or doing nothing. The most commonly endorsed response was talking with their child after they disclosed victimization (Waasdorp et al., 2011). Related research would suggest this strategy can be helpful when parents are able to teach children more adaptive ways to cope with peer conflicts and negative emotions (Conners-Burrow, Johnson, Whiteside-Mansell, McKelvey, & Gargus, 2009). Other research points to parent strategies that are potentially counterproductive: These might include calling the bully’s parents or encouraging children to use inappropriate retaliatory behavior (Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006; Rigby, 2008). Waasdorp and colleagues (2011) found that parents’ choice of strategies was associated with school climate. Specifically, parents who perceived the school climate to be responsive to and supportive of bullied students were less likely to talk to their child about being bullied and were less likely to contact teachers or administrators than parents who viewed the school climate as less supportive.

We could find no published studies that specifically evaluated parent-based interventions for bullied children, although a version of the Triple P program designed to help families with concerns about bullying currently is being evaluated (M. R. Sanders, personal communication, January 22, 2013). Many bullying prevention programs include materials or informational meetings that give parents opportunities to learn about school bullying. And some programs include more focused talks or conferences with the parents of bullies and victims. As noted previously, Ttofi and Farrington (2010) found that efforts to involve parents were related significantly to decreases in both bullying and victimization.

Some adaptations or modifications to evidence-based anti-bullying programs include selective or indicated components embedded within school-wide universal prevention programs (e.g., Frey et al., 2005; Olweus, 1993). Unfortunately, details concerning these components often are lacking, as are studies evaluating their outcomes (cf. Garandeau, Little, Kärnä, Poskiparta, & Salmivalli, 2011). Other adaptations are stand-alone programs geared specifically for individual bullies or victims and designed to operate with or without the added infrastructure of school-wide interventions (e.g., Elledge, Cavell, Ogle, & Newgent, 2010).