13 Solutions to Bullying That Could Be Applied at School

Leo eats lunch in a bathroom stall on Tuesdays and Thursdays because that’s when the group from his gym class sits near the cafeteria door. He’s twelve. He has a system: arrive late, grab a sandwich, vanish. Teachers see a quiet kid with decent grades. His parents see a boy who says “fine” about everything and sleeps badly on Sunday nights. Nobody has hit him. Nobody has to. The message arrives through a smirk, a seat suddenly “taken,” a group chat he isn’t in, a nickname that follows him down the hallway like a bad smell.

Meanwhile the adults do what adults tend to do: a phone call home that opens with “we take this very seriously,” a reminder to “just ignore it,” a promise to keep an eye out. A week later Leo is still eating alone. Good intentions, in other words, aren’t a system. Schools often respond with an assembly, a poster and a stern announcement about zero tolerance. Then the poster curls at the corners and the same patterns carry on. The research is blunt about this: one-off efforts rarely change anything, while sustained, school-wide systems reduce bullying by roughly a fifth on average. That’s not a miracle, but across a school of six hundred students it adds up to a lot fewer kids eating lunch in bathroom stalls.

The question is which pieces matter.

This article lays out 13 solutions to bullying that could be applied at school, explains what the evidence says about each, and flags the common mistakes that waste a school’s time and a child’s trust.

What counts as bullying, and why does it need a whole-school fix?

Bullying is repeated aggressive behavior, physical, verbal, relational or online, in which there’s an imbalance of power and the target has difficulty defending themselves. A single argument between equals isn’t bullying; a pattern of targeting someone who can’t easily push back is. That distinction matters because the responses differ.

The Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus, who began studying school bullying in the 1970s, built much of the modern definition around three features: intent to harm, repetition, and a power imbalance. He also developed what is often described as the original whole-school approach, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, which works at the level of the school, the classroom, the individual and the community instead of treating bullying as a private problem between two children.

Why not just discipline the bully? Because bullying is a group event with an audience, and because both the child who bullies and the child targeted often have problems the school can help with. The researchers Dorothy Espelage and Susan Swearer argued in 2003 for a social-ecological view: behavior is shaped by the individual, family, peers, school climate and wider community together. Change only one layer and the others can push things back.

The stakes are not small. William Copeland and colleagues followed more than 1,400 children in the United States into young adulthood and found that those who had been bullied showed higher rates of anxiety disorders, and those who were both bullied and bullying others (so-called bully-victims) had the highest risk of depression, anxiety and suicidal thinking. Bullying isn’t a rite of passage. It’s a genuine health risk, and its effects can last well beyond graduation.

Consider Amara, an illustrative composite, who was teased about her accent in sixth grade. By high school she’d stopped raising her hand. At twenty-five, she still rehearses sentences before speaking at work meetings.

So here’s the working principle for the rest of this article: effective solutions are layered. They shape rules, adults, peers, families and data all at once. No single trick does it.

What are the 13 solutions at a glance?

Here’s the full list, in the order this article covers them. Each is a component of a layered approach, not a standalone cure, and the sections that follow explain the evidence and the practical details.

1. Adopt a clear whole-school policy that defines bullying and spells out what happens next.
2. Train every adult, including bus drivers, cafeteria staff and substitute teachers.
3. Supervise the hot spots where bullying actually happens.
4. Teach social and emotional skills as part of the regular curriculum.
5. Hold regular class meetings and set shared classroom rules.
6. Turn bystanders into defenders by changing group norms.
7. Make reporting easy and safe, including anonymous options.
8. Respond consistently with firm, proportionate, non-humiliating consequences.
9. Support the students who are targeted with check-ins, counseling and safety plans.
10. Work with students who bully on the causes and the skills they lack.
11. Involve parents and caregivers with information, meetings and clear communication.
12. Address cyberbullying with digital citizenship lessons and clear online conduct rules.
13. Measure what’s happening with anonymous surveys, then adjust.

Notice the balance. Five concern adult systems (policy, training, supervision, response, measurement). Three concern children’s skills and culture (social learning, class meetings, bystanders). The rest concern support and partnerships. Programs that lean too far in one direction tend to underperform, such as a school with a great policy but no one watching the corridors, or a school with lovely lessons and no consequences.

You might wonder whether you need all thirteen on day one. You don’t. Most schools do better by starting with the first three and the last one: a policy, trained adults, visible supervision and a baseline survey. They give you structure and information. The rest can be layered in over a school year or two.

A word of caution about packaged programs. Some, like the Olweus program and KiVa, have been evaluated in dozens of schools. Others have little evidence at all. When a vendor promises to “end bullying” in a semester, treat the claim the way you’d treat a diet that promises ten pounds by Friday.

One last point on dosage. The research suggests that intensity and duration matter. A program running for a few weeks is unlikely to shift a school’s culture; one that runs for years, with staff reminders and repeated student sessions, has a better chance.

Which three foundations should every school build first?

Start with Solution 1: a clear whole-school policy, Solution 2: staff training and Solution 3: hot-spot supervision. Together they give a school a shared definition, adults who know what to do, and eyes on the places where harm occurs. The evidence for these basics is some of the strongest in the field.

The criminologists Maria Ttofi and David Farrington reviewed 44 evaluations of school-based programs and reported that, on average, bullying fell by 20 to 23 percent and victimization by 17 to 20 percent. The elements linked to bigger drops included parent meetings, firm disciplinary methods, improved playground supervision, teacher training, classroom rules and a whole-school policy. A later update by Hannah Gaffney and colleagues, covering about 100 evaluations, found somewhat smaller but still meaningful reductions of around 19 to 20 percent for bullying and 15 to 16 percent for victimization. Notice the word “modest.” These are meaningful averages, not guarantees.

Solution 1, the policy, should be short enough that a ten-year-old could summarize it. It defines bullying, includes online behavior, names who’s responsible for what, lists the steps after a report, and promises protection from retaliation. A binder on a shelf is not a policy; a policy is something students and staff can describe from memory. Involve students and families in drafting it, and publish it in plain language.

Solution 2, the training, should reach everyone who touches a child’s day: teachers, aides, front-office staff, lunch supervisors, coaches, bus drivers and substitutes. Adults need to recognize subtle forms such as exclusion and rumor-spreading, know how to intervene on the spot, and understand how to document and escalate. Many schools do a single training in August and consider the job done. Refreshers matter more than people expect.

Solution 3, the supervision, means mapping where incidents occur (stairwells, locker rooms, buses, the far corner of the field, the line for lunch) and putting trained adults there. A simple exercise: ask students to mark “places where I don’t feel safe” on a school map. The clusters usually surprise the adults.

Take Hana, an illustrative middle-school principal, who ran that map exercise and discovered that the quietest part of the building, a back stairwell used by about forty students at lunch, accounted for nearly a third of reported incidents. She added two staff members and a plan to prop the doors open. Reports from that area dropped within a month.

Supervision shouldn’t turn into surveillance or policing. Staff presence works because it makes aggression less rewarding and help easier to find, not because it makes children afraid.

How do schools teach kids to stop bullying instead of just punishing it?

By building the skills and norms that make bullying less rewarding. That’s the logic of Solution 4: social and emotional learning, Solution 5: class meetings and rules and Solution 6: bystander training. Instead of waiting for incidents, they change the climate in which incidents occur.

Solution 4, social and emotional learning (SEL), teaches children to recognize emotions, take other people’s perspectives, manage anger, solve conflicts and make responsible decisions. A major meta-analysis by Joseph Durlak, Roger Weissberg and colleagues pooled 213 school-based programs involving more than 270,000 students and found that SEL participants showed better social and emotional skills, attitudes and behavior, along with an 11-percentile-point gain in academic achievement. SEL isn’t an anti-bullying program by itself, but it builds the capacities that bullying prevention relies on.

Solution 5, class meetings and shared rules, gives students a voice. Weekly fifteen-minute circles, where students discuss class life and practice solving problems, establish norms that “we don’t do that here.” Olweus-style classroom rules are few and positive: we will not bully others; we will try to help students who are bullied; we will include students who are left out. Rules written with students are followed more often than rules handed down.

Solution 6, bystander training, may be the most important shift in how we think about bullying. The Finnish psychologist Christina Salmivalli and her colleagues showed in 1996 that bullying is a group process in which children take roles such as assistant, reinforcer, defender and outsider. Most students aren’t bullies or targets; they’re witnesses, and their reactions (laughing, staying silent, stepping in) shape whether bullying pays off socially. Her team then built the KiVa program, which teaches students empathy and practical defending behavior.

How well does it work? In a large Finnish trial reported by Antti Kärnä and colleagues, KiVa reduced bullying and victimization in grades 4 to 6, though the effect sizes were small, and later work suggested stronger results in younger grades than in lower secondary school. A separate trial in Wales found no statistically significant effect on student-reported victimization, with uneven implementation as a likely factor. So the honest reading: promising, context-dependent, and sensitive to how faithfully a school delivers it.

In practice, bystander skills are specific and low-risk. Check in privately with the student who was targeted. Say “stop” calmly if it feels safe. Move closer or walk away together. Tell an adult. Refuse to laugh or share the video. Kids need to rehearse these moves in role-plays, because freezing is the default under social pressure.

Some programs put peers in charge of solving conflicts, and here the evidence turns cautionary, as the next sections discuss.

How should a school handle a report of bullying?

Quickly, calmly and the same way every time. Solution 7 makes it easy to report, Solution 8 sets a consistent response and Solution 9 protects and supports the targeted student. When one of the three is weak, the whole chain fails.

Think about the report first. A student who’s being targeted has to cross a social line to tell anyone, and many don’t. They fear retaliation, being labeled a snitch, or being told to “just ignore it.” Solution 7 lowers that barrier. Offer several routes: a trusted adult, a drop box, an anonymous online form, a text line, a peer ambassador. Promise a response within a set time, such as one school day, and keep the promise. If reports vanish into a void, students stop making them.

Take Kai, an illustrative eighth-grader, who typed a report into an anonymous form at 11 p.m. on a Sunday. The counselor read it before first period and quietly pulled him out of homeroom to talk. Nobody in the class knew. That’s the standard to aim for.

Solution 8, consistent response, means the same steps regardless of who the students are. A sensible sequence: stop the behavior; make sure the targeted student is safe; gather facts separately from each person involved and from witnesses; decide whether the behavior meets the school’s definition; apply proportionate, predictable consequences; and follow up. Maria Ttofi and David Farrington‘s review linked firm disciplinary methods to better outcomes. “Firm” does not mean harsh or humiliating. Public shaming, forced apologies and sit-down confrontations between a bully and the target often backfire, because they expose the target to further risk and rarely produce sincere remorse.

Solution 9, supporting the targeted student, starts with listening without minimizing. Avoid phrases like “kids will be kids.” Agree on a safety plan: who they can go to, where they can go if things escalate, how adults will check in. Schedule brief follow-ups at one week, one month and one term. Connect them with a school counselor or psychologist if distress is high. Some students benefit from social-skills groups or from help rebuilding friendships through shared activities.

A word about cases that don’t fit neatly. Sometimes the child who seems to be bullying is also being targeted, and sometimes a conflict is mutual. Careful fact-finding matters. So does reading the signs of discrimination: if bullying targets a student’s race, disability, sexuality, religion or gender identity, the school may have additional legal and ethical obligations, and the response should treat it accordingly.

Document everything, plainly and without opinion. If it goes to a parent meeting or a formal complaint, clear records are worth their weight in gold.

What about the child who bullies, and what about parents?

Both matter more than most schools admit. Solution 10 is to work with students who bully on the reasons and the skills behind it, and Solution 11 is to treat parents and caregivers as partners with clear information instead of last-minute recipients of bad news.

Start with Solution 10. Punishment alone seldom changes the underlying drivers. Children bully for different reasons: status, boredom, anger, modeling what they see at home, a need to control something when everything else feels out of control, or because they’ve been targeted themselves. A good response holds the child accountable and also asks what’s happening. That might include a conversation with a counselor, social-skills coaching, anger-management strategies, and positive roles that offer status through helping instead of dominating.

Restorative approaches belong here when done well. A restorative conversation brings the people affected together, with careful preparation and only when the targeted student wants to take part, to talk about what happened, who was hurt and how to repair harm. Done badly, it becomes a forced apology that retraumatizes the target. The restorative approach needs trained facilitators, consent and time. For serious, repeated or violent incidents, it should not replace safety measures.

The KiVa program handles acute cases through structured discussions with the bullying students, a follow-up and, where appropriate, support from high-status peers for the target. Researchers have found these approaches work better when adults communicate that bullying is unacceptable and that they expect change, rather than relying on blame or on neutral mediation.

Now Solution 11. The review by Maria Ttofi and David Farrington found that parent meetings and information for parents were associated with greater reductions in bullying. Practical steps include a plain-language letter at the start of the year explaining the school’s definition and process; an evening session on recognizing signs and talking to children; a contact person for concerns; and fast, respectful communication when an incident occurs.

Avoid blaming. A parent who hears “your child is a bully” in the first sentence will often defend instead of listen. Starting with specifics, describing the behavior, outlining the school’s response and inviting the family’s insight produces better cooperation. Likewise, parents of targeted students need reassurance that the school takes it seriously and a concrete plan, not vague promises.

Some families will be hostile or unreachable. Keep the door open anyway, document your attempts, and don’t let a parent’s reaction determine how seriously you take the child’s behavior.

What if the home itself is the source of aggression? Then the school counselor or social worker has a role, within the limits of safeguarding rules, to connect the family with resources.

How do schools deal with cyberbullying and know whether anything is working?

With two final solutions that fit together: Solution 12, explicit rules and lessons on online behavior, and Solution 13, regular measurement through anonymous surveys and data review. Cyberbullying travels beyond the school gate, so you need both clear expectations and a way to see what’s really happening.

Solution 12. The researchers Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin surveyed roughly 2,000 US middle schoolers and found that students who experienced cyberbullying, as targets or as perpetrators, were more likely to report suicidal thoughts and attempts than those who hadn’t. Victims were about 1.9 times more likely to have attempted suicide, and offenders about 1.5 times. This was a cross-sectional survey, so it can’t prove cyberbullying caused the attempts; many young people involved had other struggles. But it’s a strong reason to take online harassment seriously.

A school’s practical toolkit includes the following. Include online conduct in the anti-bullying policy and say clearly when the school will act on off-campus behavior that affects school life. Teach digital citizenship in age-appropriate lessons: what a screenshot can do, how to block and report, why forwarding a humiliating video counts as participating. Tell students how to preserve evidence. Give parents guidance on device rules. And create a quick channel for reporting online incidents that doesn’t require the student to hand over their phone to a stranger.

Consider Maya, an illustrative ninth-grader, who discovers a group chat with her photo captioned by cruel jokes. She doesn’t tell anyone for three weeks. The school that has taught clear reporting steps and promised confidentiality gets a message on day one; the school that hasn’t gets silence.

Solution 13 is the one schools skip, and it explains why many programs fade. Run an anonymous student survey at least once a year (twice is better), asking about experiences of being bullied, bullying others, witnessing it, where it occurs and whether students trust the adults to help. Track office referrals, attendance patterns and counselor contacts. Share results with staff, students and families, and set one or two measurable goals.

Interpret the numbers with care. A rise in reports after launching a new program can mean more trust, not more bullying. A drop in reports can mean the opposite. Surveys that ask about behaviors rather than the word “bullying” tend to give more accurate pictures.

Measurement also protects against wishful thinking. If hot-spot supervision isn’t changing the numbers, that’s worth knowing before another year passes.

Which popular anti-bullying tactics don’t work?

Several well-meaning favorites fall short, and some can do harm. Evidence doesn’t support them as primary strategies, and some features of them are linked to worse outcomes.

• Zero-tolerance suspensions and expulsions. They remove students without addressing causes, discourage reporting (kids don’t want a classmate expelled) and tend to fall unevenly on already disadvantaged groups.
• One-off assemblies and awareness days. They feel like action and cost little, but a single event rarely changes behavior. They work as launch points for sustained programs, not as the program.
• Peer mediation for bullying. Mediation suits conflicts between equals. Bullying involves a power imbalance, so sitting the target across from the child bullying them can pressure the target and signal that the problem is mutual.
• Telling targets to ignore it or toughen up. It places responsibility on the child least able to carry it, and it confirms that adults won’t help.

The peer mediation point deserves emphasis because it surprises people. In their 2011 review, Maria Ttofi and David Farrington found that work with peers was associated with an increase in victimization, which may reflect programs that hand students too much responsibility without adult backing. That doesn’t mean peers have no role; bystander approaches like KiVa keep adults firmly in charge and teach specific, safe behaviors. It means peer-led models need careful design and supervision. The evidence there is mixed, and some individual programs, such as moderated online peer forums, have shown promising results.

Other pitfalls are quieter. Programs adopted piecemeal, with a lesson here and a poster there, tend to be weaker than coordinated efforts. Programs without leadership support fade when the champion leaves. Programs that never reach bus drivers or lunch staff leave gaps where bullying thrives.

And then there’s the “bully” label. Calling a child a bully in front of others can harden identity; describing the behavior and expecting change usually works better. Research on how teachers respond suggests that when adults signal disapproval of bullying but treat the student as capable of change, outcomes improve.

Finally, beware of promises. A glossy program with no independent evaluation is a risk. Ask vendors for published, independent trials in schools like yours, and watch for results that report only on satisfaction.

How can you tell if a child is being bullied?

Often you can’t tell from the outside, because many children hide it. Look for changes: in mood, sleep, appetite, school attendance, friendships and belongings. No single sign proves bullying, but clusters and sudden shifts deserve a gentle conversation.

Common warning signs include:

• Reluctance to go to school, frequent stomachaches or headaches on school mornings, or sudden requests to change routes or bus.
• Lost or damaged belongings, unexplained injuries, or “lost” lunch money.
• Withdrawal from friends and activities the child used to love.
• Mood shifts: irritability, tearfulness, anxiety or flat, hopeless statements.
• Sleep and appetite changes, nightmares or skipping meals.
• Dropping grades or loss of interest in schoolwork.

Signs that a child may be bullying others are different: sudden popularity paired with cruelty, extra money or belongings with no explanation, aggressive responses, blaming others and difficulty accepting responsibility. Some children do both, and those are often the most distressed.

How should you start the conversation? Pick a calm moment, ideally side by side in the car or on a walk instead of across a table. Ask open questions: “What’s lunch like these days?” or “Who do you hang out with at school?” Listen without rushing to fix. Thank the child for telling you, and say plainly that it isn’t their fault. Then ask what they’d like to happen, because a child who feels their wishes are ignored may shut down.

The long-term consequences make early action worthwhile. William Copeland‘s follow-up study found raised psychiatric risks in adulthood for children involved in bullying, which is a good reason to treat distress seriously and to involve a primary care doctor (a GP in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand), a school counselor or a psychologist when symptoms persist.

If a young person talks about wanting to die or hurt themselves, treat it as urgent. In the US, call or text 988; in Canada, call or text 9-8-8; in the UK and Ireland, Samaritans is on 116 123, and in Ireland Pieta is on 1800 247 247; in Australia, Lifeline is 13 11 14; in New Zealand, call or text 1737. In an immediate emergency, call 911 (US and Canada), 999 (UK), 112 or 999 (Ireland), 000 (Australia) or 111 (New Zealand).

Keep the language kind and the follow-up regular. One conversation is a start; bullying is rarely resolved in one.

How could a school start in the next 90 days?

Pick a small team, collect honest data, and build the foundations first. A realistic plan treats the first term as groundwork, not a finished transformation. Rushing to launch every one of the thirteen solutions at once is a reliable way to exhaust staff and get a shallow version of each.

A few leadership details decide whether this works. Principal support appears in implementation studies of whole-school programs as a key driver, as do a named coordinator, protected staff time and communication that doesn’t treat bullying prevention as an extra chore. Schools that tack it on usually watch it fade within a year.

Budget need not be huge. Several steps, such as mapping hot spots, adjusting supervision schedules, writing a clearer policy and running class meetings, cost mostly time. Packaged curricula like KiVa or Olweus involve fees and training, so weigh them against the school’s resources and context, and check whether there’s evidence from similar schools.

Expect resistance. Some staff will say they have no time; some parents will want harsher punishment; some students will roll their eyes at anything labeled “anti-bullying.” Respond with data from your own survey. Numbers from your own hallways are more persuasive than numbers from a journal.

And be patient with the curve. Early on, reports often rise as students start trusting the system. That’s a sign it’s working, not failing. The real tests come at the six- and twelve-month surveys, when the share of students reporting being bullied should begin to fall.

FAQs about Solutions to Bullying at School

What is the most effective way to stop bullying at school?

No single tactic does it. The strongest evidence supports layered, whole-school programs that combine a clear policy, trained staff, better supervision of hot spots, classroom lessons, consistent responses to incidents and involvement of parents. Maria Ttofi and David Farrington’s review found that such programs reduced bullying by about 20 to 23 percent on average, and a later update found slightly smaller but still real reductions. Intensity and duration seem to matter. A school that does everything for six weeks tends to get less than one that does fewer things for years.

Do anti-bullying programs actually work?

Yes, on average, though the effects are modest and vary a lot between programs and schools. Meta-analyses indicate reductions of roughly one fifth in bullying and somewhat less in victimization. Some programs, like the Olweus program, have shown larger effects in the settings where they were developed, while others, such as KiVa, have worked well in Finland but shown mixed results elsewhere. Implementation quality is a big reason. A strong program delivered half-heartedly often performs worse than a decent program delivered faithfully.

Should bullies be suspended or expelled?

Rarely as a first response. Suspension removes a student temporarily without addressing why the behavior happens, and it can make students and parents less willing to report. Firm, predictable consequences do matter, and research links clear disciplinary methods with better outcomes, but these can include loss of privileges, supervised reintegration, counseling, parent meetings and restorative steps. Serious violence, threats or safety risks may justify removal, with support to return. The aim is to protect the targeted student and change the behavior, not just exclude.

How can parents help if their child is being bullied?

Start by listening calmly and telling your child it isn’t their fault. Ask what they want to happen before you act. Keep a simple record of dates, incidents and screenshots. Contact the school in writing, ask about its bullying policy and request a meeting with a specific contact person. Follow up regularly. Avoid confronting the other child or their family directly, since it often escalates things. Watch for changes in sleep, mood and attendance, and involve a doctor or counselor if distress is lasting or your child talks about self-harm.

Is cyberbullying handled differently from in-person bullying?

The principles are the same, but the logistics differ. Cyberbullying can occur at any hour, spreads quickly and leaves a record. Schools should include online behavior in their policy, teach students how to block, report and save evidence, and spell out when the school will act on off-campus conduct that affects school life. Research by Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin links cyberbullying involvement with higher rates of suicidal thoughts and attempts in middle schoolers, though the relationship is correlational. That is one reason to treat online harassment as seriously as anything in a hallway.

What should a teacher do when they see bullying happening?

Step in right away, calmly and visibly. Stop the behavior, check on the student who was targeted, and avoid questioning anyone in front of the class. Later, speak with each student separately, record what you observed and report it through the school’s process, even if it seems minor. Follow up with the targeted student within a day or two and again after a week. Don’t ask students to resolve it themselves, and don’t dismiss it as a joke. Consistency from adults is one of the most reliable ways to shift student behavior.

How long does it take for an anti-bullying program to work?

Expect early signs within a term and measurable changes over a year or more. Reports often rise at first because students begin to trust the system, so a jump in incidents recorded isn’t necessarily bad news. Surveys at baseline and at six or twelve months give the clearest picture. Studies suggest that programs of greater intensity and duration work better, and that effects can fade if schools stop reinforcing them. Treat prevention as part of the school’s routine, not a project with an end date.

Can bystanders really make a difference?

Yes. Christina Salmivalli’s research showed that bullying is a group process and that the audience’s reactions, including laughing, staying silent or defending, influence whether it continues. When bystanders support the targeted student or refuse to reward the behavior, the social payoff for bullying shrinks. Programs like KiVa teach safe, practical ways to help, such as checking in privately, getting an adult or leaving together. Students should never be pushed to confront a dangerous situation alone. Defending works best when it is backed by adults who respond reliably to reports.

Bibliography

• Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 419-426.
• Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.
• Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383.
• Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 111-133.
• Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206-221.
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82(1), 311-330.
• Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell.
• Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1-15.
• Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27-56.