SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 287

Addressing Bullying in Schools

Theoretical Perspectives and Their Implications

KEN RIGBY
School of Education, University of South Australia

ABSTRACT Bullying in schools is now regarded as an important

social problem which schools need to address. However, recent evalua-
tions of existing anti-bullying programs have not indicated a high
level of success in the reduction of bullying. This article seeks to criti-
cally examine the theoretical perspectives that have been adopted in
explaining the prevalence of bullying and their implications for the
work of schools. Five different theoretical perspectives are identified
and examined. Each is shown to have some empirical support and to
have influenced the thinking adopted by schools and actions under-
taken in addressing bullying. However, none can claim to provide a
complete explanation for bullying behaviour in schools, nor form the
basis for a comprehensive approach to the problem. It is suggested
that educators recognize both the strengths and limitations of existing
theoretical perspectives.

Introduction
There is now widespread support for the view that schools should take
action to counter bullying among students. There is not, however, at
this stage strong or consistent evidence that interventions to reduce
bullying have been more than modestly effective. In a meta-evaluation
of 12 well-planned interventions conducted between 1986 and 2001 in
different countries, the programs were generally found to have had
significant but relatively small effects in reducing the proportion of
children being victimized and little or no effect in the reduction of
children bullying others (Rigby, 2002a).
Schools today are being presented with a wide range of alternative

Please address correspondence to: Dr Ken Rigby, University of South Aus-

tralia, School of Education, Underdale Campus, Holbrooks Road, Underdale,
South Australia, Australia 5032.

School Psychology International Copyright © 2004 SAGE Publications (London,

Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol. 25(3): 287–300.
DOI: 10.1177/0143034304046902

287
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 288

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

views and these are related to suggestions about how bullying can be
addressed. It is known that schools have adopted a wide variety of
methods to prevent bullying from occurring and to deal with incidents
should they arise. In a survey of 40 Australian schools, it was found
that many of them differ markedly in their understanding of why
children bully and in the kinds of actions they are taking to counter the
problem (Rigby and Thomas, 2002). This being so, it behoves us to look
critically at the various theoretical perspectives that have been held by
writers and researchers concerned with addressing bullying in schools
and carefully consider the implications each may have for the devising
and implementing of school-based policies and practices.

Defining bullying
It is agreed that bullying involves aggressive behaviour. Generally, it is
conceived as aggression in which there is an imbalance of power
between aggressor and victim and, moreover, the aggressive acts are
deliberate and repeated (Farrington 1993; Olweus, 1993; Smith and
Sharp, 1994). Bullying, it is often said, does not occur in situations
where there is conflict between people of equal or similar power. Dis-
tinctions are commonly made between ways in which the bullying is
conducted, e.g. physically, verbally and indirectly (i.e. by excluding
people). In making a distinction between aggressive acts (which can
occur between people of equal power) and aggressive acts which involve
a power imbalance, addressing bullying is commonly seen as a moral
issue, the assumption being that the abuse of power is especially repre-
hensible. Finally, it is generally recognized that bullying can be viewed
along a continuum of seriousness, with most bullying acts being of
low severity, as in occasional unpleasant teasing, and some much less
commonly perpetrated of extreme severity, as in continual physical
assaults and/or total exclusion from others over an extended period
(Rigby, 2001). Defined along these lines, large-scale surveys in
Australia with more than 38,000 student respondents have revealed
that about half of Australian students have experienced some bullying
at school and approximately one in six report being bullied on a weekly
basis (Rigby, 1997b).

Theoretical perspectives on bullying and their implications

In distinguishing between ways in which the problem has been con-
ceived, it is not being suggested that all programs to address bullying
are based upon one or other of the following perspectives. Some pro-
grams draw upon a number of theoretical positions; some appear to
be atheoretical or eclectic. However, it is not uncommon to find

288
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 289

Rigby: Addressing Bullying in Schools

anti-bullying programs that draw mainly upon one theoretical position

which determines the emphasis placed on what schools should do –
and what they should not do. Five major theoretical perspectives on
bullying may be identified, each offering an explanation for bullying
behaviour and each having implications for schools addressing the
problem of bullying. These may be broadly described as: (i) bullying as
an outcome of individual differences between students; (ii) bullying as
a developmental process; (iii) bullying as a socio-cultural phenomenon;
(iv) bullying as a response to peer pressures within the school and
(v) bullying from the perspective of restorative justice These are
examined below, together with their implications for school policies
and practices.

(i) Bullying as the outcome of individual differences

Theory. According to this view, bullying occurs as a result of encoun-

ters between children who differ in their personal power in which the
more powerful child is motivated to seek to oppress the less powerful
and actually does so repeatedly. In a school there are invariably con-
siderable imbalances in power between children, related to physical
and/or psychological differences. There are also some children who
enjoy dominating others and inevitably seek out those they can bully.
The conjunction of being relatively powerful and also motivated to
dominate others less powerful than themselves is seen as the major
reason why bullying occurs in schools.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken to identify
the physical and psychological factors that are associated with acting
in a bullying way and/or being bullied by another person or group of
persons at school. It has been reported that children who continually
bully others tend to be physically stronger than average, to be general-
ly aggressive, manipulative and low in empathy (Farley, 1999; Olweus,
1993; Sutton and Keogh, 2000). Children who are more often victimized
than others tend to be physically weak, be introverted and have low
self-esteem (Maynard and Joseph, 1997; O’Moore and Hillery, 1991;
Slee and Rigby, 1993). It has been suggested that at least some of these
differences may have a genetic basis. For example, genetic influence
has been claimed, based upon a study of the tendency to bully of pairs
of identical and fraternal twins. It was reported that identical twins
were significantly more alike in this respect than fraternal twins
(O’Connor et al., 1980).The quality of family life is thought to con-
tribute to the tendency for some children to engage in bullying their
peers. Dysfunctional families and oppressive parenting have been
implicated in promoting aggressive behaviour of children towards their
peers (Rigby, 1994).

289
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 290

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

Implications. Teachers can have only limited influence on the parent-

ing of children who attend their school and essentially none upon
genetic influences that could possibly incline a child towards becoming
involved in bully/victim problems. This view of the causes of bullying
directs the attention of teachers towards identifying individuals who
are likely to become ‘problems’, that is, children who appear pre-
disposed to act aggressively without concern for the well-being of
others or have characteristics that suggest that they are more likely
than others to be victimized. In Australia they would be attending
especially to the 4 percent or so of children who have been identified as
frequently engaging in bullying others and the 15 percent or so who are
bullied in some way on a weekly basis (Rigby, 1997b).
Working with these children may take the form of seeking to modify
their behaviour, by counselling and/or (in the case of bullies) by the use
of disciplinary means. Several intervention programs that have
emphasized the need for children who persistently bully others to
change have focused upon the use of clearly defined rules of behaviour
in how children treat others and the application of appropriate non-
physical sanctions when children have been identified as bullying
others. Examples of such programs include those implemented in both
primary and secondary schools in Norway designed by Olweus (1993)
and in Flanders by Stevens et al. (2000). A similar theoretically based
program has been implemented in kindergartens in Switzerland by
Alsaker and Valkanover (2001). They have had mixed success. The
Norwegian intervention was found to have been highly successful in
reducing bullying in one part of Norway, the Bergen area, where a 50
percent reduction in reported bullying was claimed by Olweus (1993).
In another part of Norway, in Rogaland, there was no overall reduction
(Roland,1993). In the Flanders study there were slight reductions in
reported victimization among primary school children but not among
secondary school students. In the Swiss study, relatively small reduc-
tions in the proportion of kindergarten children being bullied, but not
among those who bullied others were observed.
Whilst most attention has been directed towards changing the
person who bullies, some schools have sought to address the issue of
how victims can learn to become less vulnerable. This has involved pro-
viding training in relevant social skills, especially in assertiveness
(Field,1999; Smith and Sharp, 1994). Generally, victims are more will-
ing to learn how they can change than are bullies. This may account for
the fact that reductions in the proportions of children bullying others
has been notably more consistent than reductions in the proportion of
children bullying others (Rigby, 2002a).

290
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 291

Rigby: Addressing Bullying in Schools

(ii) Bullying as a developmental process

Theory. This perspective conceives bullying as beginning in early

childhood when children begin to assert themselves at the expense of
others in order to establish their social dominance. Children tend at
first to do this crudely, for example by hitting out at others, especially
those less powerful than themselves in an attempt to intimidate them.
This view resonates with evolutionary theory, which argues that domi-
nation over others has been, and still is, a primary goal ensuring an
individual’s survival in a competitive environment and is the means by
which the strongest prevail and the existence of the species is pro-
longed. But as Hawley (1999) points out, as children develop they
gradually discover and employ less socially reprehensible ways of
dominating others. Verbal and indirect forms of bullying become more
common than physical forms. Judging from the self reports of children,
the kind of behaviour that is generally labelled as ‘bullying’ becomes
progressively rare (Olweus, 1993; Smith and Sharp, 1994), although
results based upon peer nominations and teacher reports have not con-
firmed this trend (Salmivalli, 2002). As a comprehensive explanation of
bullying this view fails to take into account that although there is a
general diminution in reported victimization over time, the trend is
temporarily reversed when children move from primary to secondary
school find themselves in a new environment which is less benign
(Rigby, 1996).

Implications. The developmental view of bullying has some appeal to

some schools. It suggests that bullying is part of a natural develop-
mental process and its prevalence in a school does not mean that
schools are to blame. At the same time, it may motivate some schools to
seek means of expediting the process according to which children
mature and get ‘beyond’ bullying. The view that the nature of bullying
changes as children become older, moving away from physical means of
expression towards more verbal and indirect methods is not only con-
sistent with research evidence (Rigby, 1997b) but may also persuade
teachers to become more sensitive to more subtle forms of bullying
among older children, which can more devastating than the more
direct forms of bullying experienced by younger children (Rigby and
Bagshaw, 2001; Eslea and Ress (2001). It also challenges teachers to
consider ways of seeking to influence children at different stages of
development. For example, it may be that the imposition of inflexible
rules of behaviour followed by sanctions if they are not followed may be,
as Stevens et al. (2000) have suggested, relatively ineffective in
addressing bullying among senior students.

291
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 292

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

(iii) Bullying as a socio-cultural phenomenon.

Theory. A further perspective seeks to explain bullying as an outcome

of the existence of social groups with different levels of power. The focus
is typically on differences which have an historical and cultural basis,
such as gender, race or ethnicity and social class. In addition, differ-
ences due to being less ‘abled’ and having different religious affiliations
may be included.
Major emphasis has been placed upon differences associated with
gender. Society is seen as essentially patriarchal. Males are seen as
generally having more power than females as a consequence of
pervading social beliefs that they should be the dominant sex. In order
to maintain their dominance boys feel justified in oppressing girls.
Numerous studies have, in fact, indicated that boys are more likely
than girls to initiate bullying (Olweus, 1993, Smith and Sharp, 1994).
Moreover, it is clear that boys are more likely to bully girls than vice
versa. For example, in a large scale Australian study of some 38,000
children (Rigby, 1997b) a much higher proportion of girls claimed to be
bullied exclusively by boys (22.1 percent) than boys reporting being
bullied only by girls (3.4 percent). With cross-gender bullying it is
clearly mostly one-way traffic, and this may derive, in part, from the
way in which some boys have come to think about how they should
behave in the company of girls.
The process according to which boys come to develop characteristics
which lead to them engaging in oppressive behaviour is sometimes
described as ‘the construction of hegemonic masculinity’(Connell, 1995;
Gilbert and Gilbert, 1998). This is held not only to account largely for
boys bullying girls, but also for boys bullying boys who clearly do not
possess stereotypical masculine qualities. Such children are commonly
referred to as ‘gay’ and may include children whose sexual orientation
is homosexual. The use of language with sexual connotations to insult
children regarded as ‘gay’ is certainly widely prevalent in schools
(Duncan, 1999), although the extent to which it occurs has surprisingly
not, as yet, been investigated. Explaining the bullying of girls by girls
can invoke the notion of the construction of femininity, with girls
deviating from an idealized conception of what it is (or should be) to be
feminine. However, theoretical speculation along these lines does not
appear to have been developed.
It is sometimes claimed that bullying tends to be associated with
racial or ethnic divides. It is argued that some ethnic groups are more
powerful than others and seek to dominate them. Typically, the less
powerful are the victims of colonialism. For example, indigenous
communities in Australia in the late eighteenth century were sub-
jected to British colonialism. Aboriginal people were seen by many as

292
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 293

Rigby: Addressing Bullying in Schools

inferior – and this perception still lingers in the minds of people who
retain racist beliefs. It is sometimes argued that where the ‘superior’
status of the racially or ethnically dominant groups is most threatened,
as is the case among ‘poor whites’ who are afraid their jobs may be
taken by non-whites, hostility towards non-whites is likely to be par-
ticularly intense. Through a process of cultural transmission non-
indigenous children may feel justified in bullying their Aboriginal
peers.
This explanation for the bullying of Aboriginal children in Australia
by non-Aboriginals is consistent with results derived from a large scale
survey of Australian school children (Rigby, 2002b). Among these some
2 percent (approximating the national figure) were Aboriginal. ‘Being
called hurtful names’ was reported as occurring ‘often’ by 15.9 percent
of Aboriginal children compared with 12.5 percent of non-Aboriginal
children. Though not large, the difference was statistically significant.
Evidently in Australia race is a factor in rendering Aboriginal children
more vulnerable to peer abuse but the size of its contribution can
easily be exaggerated. There are other studies conducted outside
Australia that have not found that race or ethnicity is significantly
associated with peer victimization: see for example the results of
studies conducted in the Netherlands (Junger-Tas, 1999), Britain
(Boulton, 1995) and Germany (Losel and Bliesener, 1999). Based on
current evidence, bullying cannot be reliably associated with racial or
ethnic differences in all school communities.
In some accounts of factors affecting bullying, it is suggested that
children from families with high social status employ this source of
power to bully those less privileged. However, studies have so far failed
to show that children from lower class homes are more likely to be
bullied than children from upper class homes. Olweus (1993) claimed
that among boys attending Swedish schools bullying was unrelated to
social class as indicated by indices of parent income level and length of
parent education. Bullying was not found to be related to social class in
either Spain or Portugal (Almeida, 1999; Ortega and Mora-Merchan,
1999). In France a study of the relationship between the bullying
behaviour of 77 students (aged 15 years) and the social class of their
adoptive parents (the children were all adopted before the age of three
years) concluded that there was no significant relationship (Duyme,
1990). It must be concluded that any relationship between bullying and
social class is far from ubiquitous. Apart from gender studies, socio-
cultural explanations for bullying have thus far received comparatively
little support from empirical studies.

Implications. An exclusive or near exclusive reliance upon a socio-

cultural perspective on bullying can have striking implications for how

293
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 294

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

a school approaches the problem of bullying. Attention is focussed on

how the school curriculum in its broadest sense can influence children
to accept and respect socio-cultural differences. It is suggested that not
only should the school curriculum explicitly and directly address issues
related to differences in gender, race or ethnicity and social class in
order to counter prejudice and discrimination, but importantly the
mode of delivery of the curricula should indirectly address bullying,
through the stimulus it provides to cooperative problem-solving, emo-
tional sensitivity and independent critical thinking. The Australian
national website on bullying (http://www.bullyingnoway.com.au/)
based mainly on a socio-cultural approach to bullying, has placed pri-
mary emphasis upon this approach.
Some writers embracing a socio-cultural perspective in which gender
considerations are pre-eminent, have suggested that schools need to
abandon their current emphases upon ‘rationality,’ which is character-
istic of masculinity, in favour of exploring with students their expres-
sive and emotional worlds (Kenway and Fitzclarence, 1997). The use of
strict codes of behaviour governing bullying for instance and the use of
counselling methods to deal with individual cases are equally
abhorred. Both are seen as based on an underlying faith in rationality
and as such essentially counterproductive.

(iv) Bullying as a response to peer pressures within the school

Theory. This approach has something in common with the socio-

cultural approach in that it conceives bullying as understandable in a
social context. However, the context is not defined according to socio-
cultural categories such as gender, race and class. There is first a broad
social context consisting of the behaviours and attitudes of members of
the entire school community. Individuals are seen as influenced to a
degree by their perceptions of what may be called the school ethos
(Rigby, 1997a). Secondly, they are more powerfully influenced by a
smaller group of peers with whom they have relatively close associa-
tion. Such groups are typically formed within a school because of
common interests and purposes, and provide support for group mem-
bers. They may also constitute a threat to outsiders, sometimes to ex-
members, whom they may bully.
Situations commonly arise in a school whereby children are members
of and supported by a group that is in some situations more powerful
than an individual or smaller group that they wish to harass or bully in
some way. The motive may be a grievance or imagined grievance, a
prejudice (explicable in socio-cultural terms) or simply a desire to have
fun at the expense of another person. Importantly, the acts of bullying
are seen as typically sustained by a connection with the group (which

294
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 295

Rigby: Addressing Bullying in Schools

may be described as peer pressure or allegiance to a group) rather than

by individual motives such as personal malevolence.
This view presupposes that bullying is typically a group phe-
nomenon. Early studies of bullying in Scandinavia adopted the term
‘mobbing’, suggesting that children are bullied by mobs. While this may
sometimes occur, more commonly the bullying which involves more
than one person as aggressor appears to be conducted by one or several
individuals with the passive support of others in a group (Pepler and
Craig, 1995). When students are asked whether they have bullied
others as individuals or as members of a group, among those who have
bullied others about half admit to bullying alone and half say they have
acted as part of a group (Rigby, 2002b).

Implications. The implications for schools are that they must be

aware of the roles played by groups as distinct from individuals. They
need to identify groups and work with them. Several methods have
been devised for working with groups of children who have bullied or
are suspected of bullying others. One, the No Blame Approach (Maines
and Robinson 1992), involves a teacher or counsellor meeting with the
group of children identified as having bullied someone, in the company
of some other children. The teacher describes to the group the suffering
that has been endured by the victim, and the group is expected to con-
sider ways in which the situation can be improved. The ‘non-bullies’ in
the group are expected to exert positive peer pressure, that is influence
the ‘bullies’ to act more benevolently towards the victim. An alternative
method, generally used with older children, called the Method of
Shared Concern (Pikas, 1989; 2002) involves working initially with
individuals suspected of being in a group that is bullying someone. The
teacher’s aim here is to be communicate his/her concern for the victim
and invite (and then monitor) responsible individual action – and in so
doing to lessen the influence the group may have on each individual’s
actions. In a subsequent stage, bullies and victim are brought together
to confirm that as group members they no longer intend to bully.

(v) Bullying from the perspective of restorative justice

Theory. This perspective recognizes that some children are more like-
ly than others to be involved in bully/victim problems as a consequence
of the kind of character they have developed. Children who bully others
typically feel little or no pride in their school and are not well inte-
grated into the community (Morrison, 2002). They mishandle their
emotional reactions to the distress they cause by not experiencing
appropriate feelings of shame; in fact, they tend to attribute unworthy
characteristics to those they victimize. By contrast, victims are prone

295
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 296

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

to experiencing too much inappropriate shame. To some extent, this

perspective is one that emphasizes individual differences, as in
(i) above. But, in addition, an important role is ascribed to the school
community and to significant people who are implicated in the
problem. These can include family and friends of both bullies and
victims: that is, significant others who care about them. It is believed
that appropriate feelings of shame can and should be engendered in
those who bully others and this can be done by exposing them to con-
demnation by those they have offended. This, it is thought, can be done
constructively in the presence of those whom they care about and who
care for them. Success is seen as greatly dependent on the support
provided by those who care about the perpetrator as a person and the
readiness of the community to forgive and provide sincere acceptance
(Morrison, 2002). This approach is concerned with ‘violations against
people’ and the restoration of positive relationships rather than apply-
ing punishment for breaking rules (Cameron and Thorsborne, 2001).

Implications. Some schools have applied the ideas of restorative

justice in a preventative way through a Responsible Citizens Program
which encourages students to develop relationships with their peers
that are characterized by respect and consideration (Ahmed et al.,
2001) Students have been helped through role playing to resolve con-
flicts with peers and identify and manage inappropriate feelings of
shame. There is some evidence that the program can increase students’
feelings of safety and the more adaptive use of shame management
(Morrison, 2002). No reports, however, have yet been received on
whether a reduction of the incidence of bullying has been demonstrated
using this program. When serious cases of bullying occur, they may be
resolved through the use of a Community Conference in which victims
are encouraged to express their sense of hurt while perpetrators listen,
become contrite and agree to compensate the victim.

Discussion and conclusions

Schools today are being presented with a wide range of alternative
views and related suggestions about how bullying can be addressed.
Each of the five theoretical perspectives outlined above is consistent
with some empirical data obtained from research. Each has had some
impact upon what schools do, or do not do, in developing policies and
practices to address bullying. It can be argued, however, that no single
perspective has all the answers. Each has strengths and limitations.
For example, a view of bullying which suggests that bullying can
be explained through a consideration of the characteristics, physical
and psychological, of children who become involved in bully/victim

296
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 297

Rigby: Addressing Bullying in Schools

problems has strengths in that it can be shown that relevant charac-

teristics associated those who bully others and/or are themselves
bullied can, in many cases, be reliably identified, appropriate educa-
tional programs devised and treatments applied to meet the social
and psychological needs of individuals and/or discourage anti-social
behaviour. This approach does not, however, shed light upon bullying
behaviour which has socio-cultural determinants, requires an under-
standing of developmental changes or takes into account the influence
of the overall school ethos, group membership and peer pressures.
Similarly, a socio-cultural approach to bullying, whilst theoretically
strong on explaining bullying relating to the construction of gender,
and harassment relating to racial, ethnic or social differences, fails to
take into account that within each of the groups identified in such an
analysis there are important differences between individuals that may
result in one person acting as a bully, another as a victim and another
as seemingly uninvolved. It should also be noted that theoretical
strength is not matched with empirical validity in attributing bullying
to differences in race, ethnicity and social class, at indicated by pub-
lished studies in this area. Curricula designed to raise awareness and
understanding of prejudice and discrimination and the encouragement
of tolerance and acceptance of diversity may address part of the
problem, but a part only.
Clearly, much can be gained from examining how group membership
and peer pressures can lead to bully/victim problems. These need to be
addressed by recognizing their influence. They may then be addressed
through the use of intervention methods, such as the Method of Shared
Concern and the No Blame Approach. But again one must recognize
limitations. Some methods are developmentally inappropriate. For
example the Method of Shared Concern which involves children in
being able to share another’s perspective, requires a level of cognitive
maturity not usually found among young children. Moreover, some
bullying is not related to group membership. Some bullies are alien-
ated individuals who have little or no regard for others or for the
opinions of most, if not all, of their peers. The task here is to integrate
them as far as possible in the broader community and at the same
time to get them to recognize the shamefulness of conduct that is
directed towards humiliating and hurting others. This difficult task is
addressed in theory associated with restorative justice and through the
practice of restorative justice. This too may be seen as a partial answer
to the problem of bullying, applicable in some cases but not others.
At the present time, research has not produced any conclusive evi-
dence on which of the different perspectives and associated practices
are most likely to reduce bullying in schools. We know that none of
the programs that have been evaluated has done more than achieve

297
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 298

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

modest success with regard to some (not all) of the behaviours asso-
ciated with bullying and with some age groups only. Given that bully-
ing is such a complex issue which can be affected by a wide range of
factors, this is not surprising. What is required at this stage is a recog-
nition that none of the different theoretical explanations for bullying
can be regarded as definitive; each has strengths, each has limitations;
that some explanations appear more relevant in addressing some
bully/victim problems than others; and that the identification of what
works in different contexts and with different kinds of bullying is both
a theoretical and a practical task of pressing importance.

References
Ahmed, E., Harris, N., Braithwaite, J. and Braithwaite, V. (2001) Shame
Management Through Reintegration. Melbourne: Cambridge University
Press.
Almeida, A. (1999). ‘Portugal’, in P. K Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D.
Olweus, R. Catalano and P. T. Slee (eds) The Nature of School Bullying: A
Cross-National Perspective, pp. 174–86. London: Routledge.
Alsaker, F. D. and Valkanover, S. (2001) ‘Early Diagnosis and Prevention of
Victimization in Kindergarten’, in J. Juvonen and S. Graham (eds) Peer
Harassment in School, pp. 175–95. New York: Guilford Press.
Boulton, M. J. (1995) ‘Patterns of Bully/Victim Problems in Mixed Race Groups
of Children’, Social Development 4: 277–93.
Cameron, L. and Thorsborne, M. (2001) ‘Restorative Justice and School Disci-
pline: Mutually Exclusive?’, in J. Braithwaite and H. Strang (eds) Restora-
tive Justice and Civil Society, pp 180–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Connell, R. (1995) Masculinities. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Duncan, N. (1999 Sexual Bullying: Gender Conflict and Pupil Culture in
Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.
Duyme, M. D. (1990) ‘Antisocial Behaviour and Postnatal Environment: A
French Adoption Study’, Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied
Disciplines, 31(5): 699–71.
Eslea, M. and Rees, J. (2001) ‘At What Age Are Children Most Likely to be
Bullied at School?’, Aggressive Behaviour 27(6): 419–29.
Farley, R. L. (1999) ‘Does a Relationship Exist Between Social Perception,
Social Intelligence and Empathy for Students with a Tendency to be a Bully,
a Victim or Bully/Victim?’, Honours thesis, Adelaide Psychology Depart-
ment, University of Adelaide.
Farrington, D. P. (1993) ‘Understanding and Preventing Bullying’, in M. Tonny
and N. Morris (eds) Crime and Justice, 17. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Field, E. M. (1999). Bully Busting. Lane Cove, NSW: Finch Publishing Pty.
Gilbert, R. and Gilbert, P. (1998) Masculinity Goes to School. St Leonards,
NSW: Allen and Unwin.
Hawley, P. H. (1999) ‘The Ontogenesis of Social Dominance: A Strategy-Based
Evolutionary Perspective’, Developmental Review 19: 97–132.
Junger-Tas, J. (1999) ‘The Netherlands’, in P. K Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-
Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano and P. T. Slee (eds) The Nature of School

298
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 299

Rigby: Addressing Bullying in Schools

Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective, pp. 205–23. London: Routledge.

Kenway, J. and Fitzclarence, L. (1997) Gender and Education 9(1): 117–33.
Losel, F. and Bliesener, T. (1999) ‘Germany’, in P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J.
Junger-Tas, D., Olweus, R., Catalano and P. T. Slee (eds) The Nature of
School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective, pp. 224–49. London: Rout-
ledge.
Maines, B. and Robinson, G. (1992) Michael’s Story: The ‘No Blame’ Approach.
Bristol: Lame Duck Publishing.
Maynard, H. and Joseph, S. (1997) ‘Bully/Victim Problems and Their Associa-
tion with Eysenck’s Personality Dimensions in 8 to 13 Year Olds’, British
Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 447–56.
Morrison, B. (2002) ‘Bullying and Victimization in Schools: A Restorative
Justice Approach’, Trends and Issues No. 219, Australian Institute of
Criminology.
O’Connor, M., Foch, T., Todd, S. and Plomin, R. (1980) ‘A Twin Study of Specific
Behavioural Problems of Socialisation as Viewed by Parents’, Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology 8: 189–99.
O’Moore, A. M. and Hillery, B. (1991) ‘What Do Teachers Need to Know?’, in
M. Elliott (ed.) Bullying: A Practical Guide to Coping in Schools. Harlow:
David Fulton.
Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying in Schools. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Ortega, R. and Mora-Merchan, J. A. (1999) ‘Spain’, in P. K Smith, Y. Morita, J.
Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano and P. T. Slee (eds) The Nature of School
Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective, pp. 157–73. London: Routledge.
Pepler, D. J and Craig, W. M. (1995) ‘A Peek Behind the Fence: Naturalistic
Observations of Aggressive Children with Remote Audiovisual Recording’,
Developmental Psychology 31(4): 548–53.
Pikas, A. (1989) ‘The Common Concern Method for the Treatment of Mobbing’,
in E. Roland and E. Munthe (eds) Bullying: An International Perspective,
pp. 91–104. London: David Fulton In Association With The Professional
Development Foundation.
Pikas, A. (2002) ‘New Developments of the Shared Concern Method’, School
Psychology International 23: 307–26.
Rigby, K. (1994) ‘Psycho-Social Functioning in Families of Australian Adoles-
cent Schoolchildren Involved in Bully/Victim Problems’, Journal of Family
Therapy 16(2): 173–89.
Rigby, K. (1996) ‘Peer Victimisation and the Structure of Primary and Second-
ary Schooling’, Primary Focus 10(7): 4–5.
Rigby, K. (1997a) ‘Attitudes and Beliefs about Bullying Among Australian
School Children’, Irish Journal of Psychology 18(2): 202–20.
Rigby, K. (1997b) Manual for the Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ). Point
Lonsdale, Victoria, Australia: The Professional Reading Guide.
Rigby (2001) Stop the Bullying: A Handbook for Schools. Melbourne: Aus-
tralian Council for Educational Research.
Rigby, K. (2002a) A Meta-Evaluation of Methods and Approaches to Reducing
Bullying in Pre-schools and in Early Primary School in Australia. Common-
wealth Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra (Tel: +1800 703 777 for
free copies).
Rigby, K. (2002b) New Perspectives on Bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Rigby, K., Bagshaw, D. (2001) ‘The Prevalence and Hurtfulness of Acts of
Aggression from Peers Experienced by Australian Male and Female Adoles-
cents at School’, Children Australia 26: 36–41.

299
SPI 25/3 7/20/04 1:57 PM Page 300

School Psychology International (2004), Vol. 25(3)

Rigby, K. and Thomas, B. (2002) How Australian Schools are Responding to the
Problem of Peer Victimisation in Schools. A Report for the Criminology
Research Council. Canberra.
Roland, E. (1993) ‘Bullying: A Developing Tradition of Research and Manage-
ment’, in D. P Tattum (ed.) Understanding and Managing Bullying,
pp. 15–30. Oxford: Heinemann Educational.
Salmivalli, C. (2002) ‘Is There an Age Decline in Victimization by Peers at
School?’, Educational Research 44(3): 269–77.
Slee, P. T. and Rigby, K. (1993) ‘The Relationship of Eysenck’s Personality
Factors and Self-Esteem to Bully/Victim Behaviour in Australian School
Boys’, Personality and Individual Differences 14: 371–73.
Smith, P. K. and Sharp, S. (eds) (1994) School Bullying: Insights and Perspec-
tives. London: Routledge.
Stevens, V., de Bourdeaudhuij, I. and Van Oost, P. (2000) ‘Bullying in Flemish
Schools: An Evaluation of Anti-Bullying Interventions in Primary and
Secondary Schools’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 70: 195–210.
Sutton, J. and Keogh (2000) ‘Social Competition in School: Relationships with
Bullying, Machiavellianism and Personality’, British Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology 70: 443–57.

300