CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 313Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingSchool Health and Nursing Education

Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Gaffney, Hannah, Ttofi, Maria M., Farrington, David P.·2021·Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World
DOI 10.1002/cl2.1143PMC PMC8356322
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Bullying first emerged as an important topic of research in the 1980s in Norway (Olweus), and a recent meta-analysis shows that these forms of aggression remain prevalent among young people globally (Modecki et al.). Prominent researchers in the field have defined bullying as any aggressive behavior that incorporates three key elements, namely: (1) an intention to harm, (2) repetitive in nature, and (3) a clear power imbalance between perpetrator and victim (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Farrington). There are many negative outcomes associated with bullying perpetration, such as: suicidal ideation (Holt et al.), weapon carrying (Valdebenito et al.), drug use (Ttofi et al.), and violence and offending in later life (Ttofi et al.). Bullying victimization too is associated with negative outcomes such as: suicidal ideation (Holt et al.), anxiety, low self-esteem and loneliness (Hawker& Boulton). Therefore, school bullying is an important target for effective intervention, and should be considered a matter of public health concern. Objectives: The objective of this review is to establish whether or not existing school-based antibullying programs are effective in reducing school-bullyng behaviors. This report also updates a previous meta-analysis conducted by Farrington and Ttofi. This earlier review found that antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization and a primary objective of the current report is to update the earlier analysis of 53 evaluations by conducting new searches for evaluations conducted and published since 2009. Search Methods: Systematic searches were conducted using Boolean combinations of the following keywords: bully*; victim*; bully-victim; school; intervention; prevention; program*; evaluation; effect*; and anti-bullying . Searches were conducted on several online databases including, Web of Science, PscyhINFO, EMBASE, EMBASE, DARE, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Databases of unpublished reports, such as masters' and doctoral theses (e.g., Proquest) were also searched. Selection Criteria: Results from systematic searches were screened thoroughly against the following inclusion criteria. To be included in this review, a study must have: (1) described an evaluation of a school-based antibullying program implemented with school-age participants; (2) utilized an operational definition of school-bullying that coincides with existing definitions; (3) measured school-bullying perpetration and/or victimization using quantitative measures, such as, self-, peer-, or teacher-report questionnaires; and (4) used an experimental or quasi-experimental design, with one group receiving the intervention and another not receiving the intervention. Data Collection and Analysis: Of the 19,877 search results, 474 were retained for further screening. The majority of these were excluded, and after multiple waves of screening, 100 evaluations were included in our meta-analysis. A total of 103 independent effect sizes were estimated and each effect size was corrected for the impact of including clusters in evaluation designs. Included evaluations were conducted using both randomized ( n = 45; i.e., randomized controlled trials/RCTs) and nonrandomized ( n = 44; i.e., quasi-experimental designs with before/after measures; BA/EC) methodologies. All of these studies included measures of bullying outcomes before and after implementation of an intervention. The remaining 14 effect sizes were estimated from evaluations that used age cohort designs. Two models of meta-analysis are used to report results in our report. All mean effects computed are presented using both the multivariance adjustment model (MVA) and random effects model (RE). The MVA model assigns weights to primary studies in direct proportion to study level sampling error as with the fixed effects model but adjusts the meta-analytic standard error and confidence intervals for study heterogeneity. The RE model incorporates between-study heterogeneity into the formula for assigning weights to primary studies. The differences and strengths/limitations of both approaches are discussed in the context of the present data. Results: Our meta-analysis identified that bullying programs significantly reduce bullying perpetration (RE: odds ratio [OR] = 1.309; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–1.38; z = 9.88; p < .001) and bullying victimization (RE: OR = 1.244; 95% CI: 1.19–1.31; z = 8.92; p < .001), under a random effects model of meta-analysis. Mean effects were similar across both models of meta-analysis for bullying perpetration (i.e., MVA: OR = 1,324; 95% CI: 1.27–1.38; z = 13.4; p < .001) and bullying victimization (i.e., MVA: OR = 1.248; 95% CI: 1.21–1.29; z = 12.06; p < .001). Under both computational models, primary studies were more effective in reducing bullying perpetration than victimization overall. Effect sizes varied across studies, with significant heterogeneity between studies for both bullying perpetration ( Q = 323.392; df = 85; p < .001; I 2 = 73.716) and bullying victimization ( Q = 387.255; df = 87; p < .001; I 2 = 77.534) outcomes. Analyses suggest that publication bias is unlikely. Between-study heterogeneity was expected, given the large number of studies included, and thus, the number of different programs, methods, measures and samples used. Authors' Conclusions: We conclude that overall, school-based antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and bullying victimization, although effect sizes are modest. The impact of evaluation methodology on effect size appears to be weak and does not adequately explain the significant heterogeneity between primary studies. Moreover, the issue of the under-/over-estimation of the true treatment effect by different experimental designs and use of self-reported measures is reviewed. The potential explanations for this are discussed, along with recommendations for future primary evaluations. Avenues for future research are discussed, including the need further explain differences across programs by correlating individual effect sizes with varying program components and varying methodological elements available across these 100 evaluations. Initial findings in the variability of effect sizes across different methodological moderators provide some understanding on the issue of heterogeneity, but future analyses based on further moderator variables are needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cl2.1143

Cites

249 of 250 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review and meta-analysis found that antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration by approximately 18-19% and bullying victimization by 15-16%.

    “A systematic review and meta-analysis found that antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration by approximately 18–19% and bullying victimization by 15–16% [105].”

    From The Impact of Social Media &amp; Technology on Child and Adolescent Mental Health (2025) · cites this paper as [105]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 253 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Alsaker, F. D. (2004). Bernese program against victimization to kindergarten and elementary schools. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 289– 306). Cambridge University Press.
  2. Alsaker, F. D., & Valkanover, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 175– 195). Guilford.
  3. Domino, M. (2011). The impact of Take the LEAD on school bullying among middle school youth (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3434870).
  4. Krueger, L. M. (2010). The implementation of an anti‐bullying program to reduce bullying behaviours on elementary school buses (Doctoral dissertation). D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY (UMI 3441874).
  5. Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among school children: Intervention and prevention. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon & V. L. Quinsey (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan (pp. 100– 125). Sage.
  6. Olweus, D. (1994c). Bullying at school: Long‐term outcome for the victims and an effective school‐based intervention program. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97– 130). Plenum.
  7. Olweus, D. (1997b). Bully/victim problems in schools: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 495– 510.
  8. Olweus, D. (1997c). Tackling peer victimization with a school‐based intervention program. In D. P. Fry & K. Bjorkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 215– 232). Erlbaum.
  9. Sutherland, A. E. (2010). The roles of school climate and peers in bullying (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queen's University, Canada.
  10. Earhart, J. A., Jr. (2011). Promoting positive peer relationships among youths: A study examining the effects of a class‐wide bullying prevention program (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved from: ProQuest dissertations publishing (no. 3481964).
  11. Lishak, N. (2011). Examination of bullying behaviours and the implementation of a social norms project in a middle school (Doctoral Dissertation). Walden University. (UMI 3454156).
  12. Noland, B. (2011). Effects of the KiVa anti‐bullying program on adolescents' perceptions of peers, depression, and anxiety (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas: University of Kansas.
  13. Combs, A. (1962). The self in chaos. PsycCRITIQUES, 7(2), 53– 54.
  14. Eisner, M., & Humphreys, D. (2012). Measuring conflict of interest in prevention and intervention research: A feasibility study. In T. Bliesener, A. Beelmann, & M. Stemmler (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior and Crime, (pp. 165 – 180). Hogrefe.
  15. Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., Ttofi, M. M., & Theodorakis, N. (2012). School bullying, depression and offending behavior later in life: An updated systematic review of longitudinal studies. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.
  16. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). Measuring effect size in meta‐analysis, with special reference to area‐based crime prevention programs and the effects of closed‐circuit television on crime. In A. Kuhn, C. Schwarzenegger, P. Margot, A. Donatsch, M. Aebi & D. Jositsch (Eds.), Criminology, criminal policy and criminal law from an international perspective (pp. 75– 89). Stampfli.
  17. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5– 14. 11392865
  18. Sieving, R. E., & Widome, R. (2008). Toward preventing youth violence: Engaging urban middle‐school students in community service learning. CURA Reporter, 38(1), 12– 17.
  19. Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). A social‐ecological framework of bullying among youth. Bullying in North American schools. Routledge.
  20. Swearer, S., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen‐Frerichs, L. A., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of comparability across studies and methodologies. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 305– 327). Routledge.
  21. Tsiantis, J. (Ed.). (2011). Bullying prevention and coping workshops: Class activities with students. A.P.H.C.A.
  22. Yaakub, N. F., Haron, F., & Leong, G. C. (2010). Examining the efficacy of the Olweus prevention programme in reducing bullying: The Malaysian experience. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 595– 598. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.148 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Zych, I., Ortega‐Ruiz, R., & del Rey, R. (2015). Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 1– 21. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Gaffney, Hannah
ORCID
Venue
Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-04-05
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
e1143-e1143
ISSN
1891-1803 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/cl2.1143
PMC
PMC8356322
OpenAlex
W3147981610
Cited by
313
References
253
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Campbell Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, bullying prevention, program effectiveness, school violence, peer victimization, peer rejection, peer acceptance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review