Understanding and Addressing Bullying in Children and Adolescents

Abstract

Bullying among children and adolescents is a complex and widespread problem with profound psychological, social, and legal implications. It includes physical, verbal, relational, sexual, and cyber forms involving perpetrators, victims, and bully-victims. This narrative literature review synthesizes findings from studies published between 2000 and 2024 across disciplines including psychology, education, public health, and law. Data were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, focusing on global and Indonesian contexts. Bullying arises from a combination of individual traits (e.g., impulsivity and poor emotional regulation), family dynamics (e.g., insecure attachment and low cohesion), and school and cultural influences. Theoretical frameworks such as the social learning and attachment theories help explain how bullying behaviors are learned and reinforced. Neurobiologically, bullying acts as a chronic stressor that dysregulates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, thereby increasing the vulnerability to anxiety, depression, and behavioral disorders. Legally, many countries, including Indonesia, have implemented child protection laws that emphasize restorative justice. Interventions such as Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Children, Cognitive-Behavioral Play Therapy, and school-based programs such as KiVa and Olweus have effectively reduced bullying and promoted psychosocial well-being. Addressing bullying requires a comprehensive multilevel approach that integrates psychological, educational, familial, and legal strategies. Sustainable and culturally relevant interventions supported by collaboration among schools, families, and policymakers are crucial for fostering safe and supportive environments for children and adolescents.

INTRODUCTION

Bullying during childhood and adolescence is a significant global public health issue with profound consequences across physical, psychological, and social domains. It impacts victims, perpetrators, and those who occupy both roles, often leading to long-term effects that persist into adulthood. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes bullying as a major concern, with its outcomes influenced by factors such as frequency, severity, type, role, and timing [1].

In Indonesia, the Child Protection Commission (KPAI) reported 2473 cases of bullying between 2011 and 2019, indicating an upward trend. According to UNICEF (2020), 41% of 15-year-olds experience bullying at least once a month, and 45% of individuals aged 14–24 years experience cyberbullying, with a higher prevalence among males. Victims commonly experience anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, psychosomatic complaints, academic underachievement, and social withdrawal. Moreover, they are at increased risk of suicidal ideation and behavior. However, perpetrators may develop conduct problems, difficulties in peer relationships, and persistent patterns of aggression. Additionally, they are at heightened risk for anxiety and depression, particularly those who are also victims [2].

Effective management of perpetrators requires multilevel interventions targeting the school environment, classroom dynamics, family systems, and individual behavior. Programs adopting a whole-school approach—with clear anti-bullying policies, teacher training, and active parental involvement—have demonstrated success [3]. At individual level, play therapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral play therapy (CBPT), has facilitated emotional expression and behavioral changes through developmentally appropriate modalities [4,5].

This literature review aimed to explore and synthesize current strategies for managing bullying perpetrators among children and adolescents, with a particular focus on psychological and behavioral interventions.

DEFINITION OF BULLYING AND BULLYING PERPETRATORS

The term “bullying” originated in Germany in 1538, initially referring to a thug or someone who intimidates the weak. Over time, this has evolved to encompass complex dynamics. Olweus (1991) defined bullying as systematic peer aggression, which was later refined to intentional and repeated aggressive behavior characterized by a power imbalance. In Japan, the term “ijime” refers to physical or psychological harm inflicted by dominant individuals in group interactions. The core elements of bullying include repetition, intent to harm, and a power differential, which may stem from physical strength, psychological advantages, or social standing. Bullying typically presents as physical, verbal, or psychological aggression aimed at intimidating or harming the victim, often recurring and causing significant emotional distress [1,6-8].

Traditional roles in bullying dynamics include perpetrators, victims, and bully-victims. Perpetrators are individuals who intentionally engage in aggressive behaviors against less powerful peers using physical strength, psychological manipulation, or social influence. Their goal is often to control, dominate, or harm others, which may manifest as exclusion, spreading rumors, verbal threats, or physical violence. In contrast, victims are those who suffer harm because of these behaviors. Bully-victims are individuals who initially experience victimization but later display aggressive behaviors, often as a reaction to internal distress, poor social understanding, or perceived threats. Aggression is typically reactive, rather than proactive [6,9,10].

In addition to these primary roles, Salmivalli (1996) proposed a model that includes additional participant roles such as assistants (who help the bully), reinforcers (who encourage bullying), defenders (who support the victim), and passive bystanders (who observe without intervention). Factors such as empathy, moral reasoning, self-efficacy, and perceived social status shape these roles. Passive bystanders, for example, may deny or ignore an incident or remain silent, thereby contributing to the maintenance of bullying dynamics [11-13].

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN CHILDREN

Worldwide, bullying is prevalent among children and adolescents. According to UNESCO, one in three children worldwide has experienced bullying, ranging from isolated incidents to repeated occurrences over several months. Regional data indicate prevalence rates of approximately 25%, 31.7%, and 48.2% in Europe, North America, and Africa, respectively. Sexual bullying is reported more frequently in low- and middle-income countries, whereas indirect bullying, such as social exclusion or rumor spreading, is more common in high-income countries [1].

In Indonesia, the 2015 Global School-based Health Survey (GSHS) reported a bullying prevalence of 20.6%, lower than that in other Southeast Asian countries, with rates ranging from 28.3% to 51%. Yusuf et al. [14] found that 19.9% of Indonesian children aged 14 years and younger had experienced bullying. UNICEF [15] reported that 41% of 15-year-old Indonesian students experienced bullying multiple times a month, with the highest rate in Southeast Asia. Data from the WHO’s Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey suggest that while no significant gender gap in bullying rates exist, prevalence tends to peak at ages 11 and 13 and then gradually declines. This trend may reflect the effects of educational and awareness campaigns. For instance, at age 11, 18.9% of boys and 19.8% of girls reported being bullied; at age 13, 14.6% of boys and 17.3% of girls; and at age 15 and older, 9.9% of boys and 9.2% of girls [1,16].

According to Indonesia’s 2022 National Assessment, 36.3% of students are at risk of being bullied, 34.5% of sexual violence, and 26.9% of physical punishment. The KPAI recorded 2133 cases of child abuse in 2022, with most involving physical or psychological violence and cybercrime. This number increased to 3800 bullying cases in educational institutions from January to August 2023, with 30%–40% occurring in religious schools. Additionally, the Indonesian Teachers’ Federation reported 23 school bullying cases in 2023, of which 50% occurred in junior high schools, 23% in elementary schools, and 13.5% in senior high and vocational schools [15,17].

BULLYING AND AGE DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN

Bullying manifests differently across developmental stages and reflects variations in cognitive maturity, social understanding, and peer interactions. Younger children typically have limited awareness of the concept of bullying, whereas adolescents have a more nuanced understanding of its social and moral implications. Physical bullying is more common in early childhood, whereas relational and cyberbullying become more prominent during adolescence. As children age, peer relationships and the pursuit of social status increasingly influence bullying behaviors and motivations [18].

In preschool-aged children, the term “aggression” is often used rather than “bullying” because of difficulties in identifying clear power imbalances. Physical aggression such as fighting over toys is frequent—particularly among boys—and is driven by impulsivity and unmet personal needs. As children’s verbal and emotional regulation skills develop, physical aggression tends to decline, whereas verbal forms of aggression become more common. Preschool marks a critical period during which social behaviors are shaped outside the home environment [18].

Relational aggression such as exclusion from play is more frequently observed in girls. Because of their egocentric thinking, preschoolers often struggle to grasp others’ perspectives and the emotional consequences of their actions, making intentional bullying more difficult to distinguish. Factors contributing to early bullying behavior include poor motor coordination, behavioral difficulties, impulsivity, and low socioeconomic status. Notably, bullying among preschoolers frequently occurs even under adult supervision, in contrast to older children, who tend to bully in the absence of authority figures [18-21].

During middle childhood (ages 5–12 years), children enter Piaget’s concrete operational stage, which is characterized by improved logical reasoning and heightened social awareness. Bullying behaviors become more sophisticated, encompassing verbal teasing, social exclusion, and intimidation, and are often motivated by peer pressure or a desire for social dominance. The prevalence of bullying generally declines with age as children develop stronger social skills and coping strategies [18,20].

During this stage, younger children tend to seek help from adults, whereas older children increasingly rely on peer support or respond to bullying through aggression. This shift reflects greater autonomy and a decreasing dependence on adult interventions. Victims may begin to internalize stress (e.g., anxiety and depression) or externalize it (e.g., aggression), forming behavioral patterns that may perpetuate involvement in bullying. Assertive responses are associated with a lower likelihood of future victimization [22].

From age 12 years onward, adolescents enter the formal operational stage; from age 12 years onward, they transition into Piaget’s formal operational stage, developing advanced abstract thinking, moral reasoning, and strategic behavior. Bullying in adolescence tends to be more intentional and socially manipulative and often involves cyberbullying. Motivations may include asserting dominance, navigating social conflicts, or conforming to group norms [20,23].

Adolescents with low emotional awareness and reduced empathy are at a higher risk of bullying. Increasing independence and unsupervised access to digital platforms amplify bullying opportunities, particularly in secondary schools. Unlike younger children, adolescents often have significant unsupervised time, allowing for more covert bullying behaviors. Social media exacerbates this dynamic by providing anonymity, rapid dissemination of information, and mechanisms for reinforcing social hierarchies through exclusion or harmful gossip [23,24].

TYPES OF BULLYING IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

Bullying among children and adolescents involves three primary roles: victims, perpetrators, and bully-victims (individuals who simultaneously engage in and are targeted by bullying). These roles may emerge in peer interactions or sibling relationships and frequently occur across multiple environments such as schools, homes, and online platforms [1]. Conventional bullying is commonly categorized into three main forms: physical, verbal, and relational. Physical bullying involves overt acts of aggression intended to cause bodily harm such as hitting, kicking, and pushing. Verbal bullying encompasses name-calling, teasing, and the use of derogatory or threatening language aimed at humiliating or intimidating victims. Relational bullying, also known as social bullying, targets a victim’s social relationships and reputation using tactics such as exclusion, spreading rumors, or social manipulation. Traditionally these behaviors occur through direct interpersonal contact; however, they frequently extend into digital spaces, amplifying their reach and impact [25].

Sexual bullying, often overlapping with sexual harassment, includes unwanted physical contact, inappropriate sexual comments, coercive behavior, or the nonconsensual distribution of explicit content. It may also take the form of homophobic teasing, in which individuals are ridiculed based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Such behaviors reinforce heteronormative dominance and contribute to the marginalization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ)+ youths [26].

With the growing use of digital technology among children and adolescents, cyberbullying is a relatively recent increasingly pervasive phenomenon, and has become a serious public health concern. Facilitated by smartphones, tablets, and social media platforms, cyberbullying allows perpetrators to cause psychological harm, often anonymously and beyond the immediate supervision of adults. It encompasses various forms, including flaming (sending provocative or hostile messages), harassment (repeated offensive messages), denigration (posting defamatory content), impersonation (using someone else’s identity to spread harmful material), exclusion (deliberate online social isolation), cyberstalking (persistent monitoring or threats), trickery (deceiving victims into revealing private information), sexting (sharing sexually explicit content), doxxing (exposing personal data without consent), cyberflashing (sending unsolicited explicit images), and revenge porn (distributing intimate material without permission). By nature persistent and far-reaching, these forms of bullying can have severe psychological effects and are often difficult to detect or prevent because of their covert and anonymous nature [16].

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BULLYING

Data from the GSHS and HBSC survey across 144 countries highlight many factors that influence the type, frequency, and severity of bullying among children and adolescents. These include individual characteristics such as gender, age, nonconformity to gender norms, physical appearance, disability, race, nationality, religion, socioeconomic status, and migrant background, as well as contextual factors such as school climate, educational environment, and family support [1]. Ahmed et al. [27] further categorized these risk factors into six domains: individual (e.g., gender, school grade, physical characteristics, self-esteem, and academic performance), peer (e.g., group norms and delinquency), school (e.g., school climate and teacher attitudes), parental (e.g., parenting styles and family conflict), community, and social media [27].

Temperament, defined as a biologically based individual trait that influences emotional and social development, plays a significant role in bullying dynamics. According to Bates’s model, three key dimensions of temperament—emotional responsiveness, attentional control, and motor activity—are associated with vulnerability to bullying. Children with low emotion regulation, high impulsivity, and poor frustration tolerance are more likely to become perpetrators, whereas those with high anxiety and emotional dependency are at greater risk of being victimized [18,28]. Thomas and Chess identified three temperament types: easy (sociable and adaptable, low risk), slow-to-warm-up (withdrawn, higher victim risk), and difficult (impulsive and moody, at risk of becoming perpetrators or victims). Buss and Plomin’s EAS model includes emotionality, activity, and sociability as predictors of aggression, whereas Kagan emphasizes behavioral inhibition, classifying children as either inhibited or uninhibited based on their response to novelty. Rothbart and Bates introduced the concept of effortful control—the ability to voluntarily regulate attention and behavior—which has been inversely associated with bullying involvement [29].

Emotional intelligence (EI), which encompasses emotion recognition, regulation, empathy, and interpersonal skills, is another key factor inversely correlated with bullying behavior [30]. Children with low EI are more likely to become perpetrators due to poor conflict resolution and emotional control, whereas those with high EI are more resilient, socially competent, and less likely to be involved in bullying. Instruments such as the Bar-On EQ Inventory and Mayer-Salovey- Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test support the use of EI assessment and training as preventive strategies against bullying [31-33].

Parental influence significantly shapes children’s propensity for bullying. HBSC data reveal that family and school support, especially parent–child communication, declines with age. Boys tend to become less communicative with parents over time, while girls, particularly those between ages 13–15 years, report greater difficulty discussing bullying experiences with their fathers. Reported family support decreases from 68% to 61% in boys and 60% to 52% in girls by age 15 years. Although peer support remains relatively high, it decreases with age [16,34]. Children from emotionally distant or authoritarian households, particularly those with rejecting mothers or inconsistent parenting, are more likely to exhibit bullying behaviors. Boys who bully often come from families where mothers are permissive and fathers are strict and authoritarian. Ineffective communication, a lack of warmth, and poor parental modeling of conflict resolution may impair social development and increase mistrust and aggression in peer interactions [6,35].

Parenting styles and national cultural norms also influence bullying patterns. Authoritative parenting, characterized by emotional warmth and consistent supervision, is associated with lower rates of bullying. In contrast, authoritarian and neglectful parenting styles increase the likelihood of aggression. In socioeconomically disadvantaged or migrant families, authoritarian parenting is prevalent and often emphasizes obedience and academic performance over emotional nurturing, contributing to greater frustration and aggressive tendencies in children [36]. Cultural norms also influence parenting practices. In many Eastern societies such as China, Confucian ideals promote strict discipline, sometimes through physical punishment, which correlates with elevated bullying rates [37]. In contrast, Western countries have reported higher bullying involvement associated with permissive or emotionally neglectful parenting styles, as found in studies from Spain and Iran [36]. Cultural expectations also affect the nature of bullying; collectivist cultures often promote group-based exclusion, whereas individualistic cultures may experience more varied bullying dynamics [38].

Education systems also play a crucial role. In some Western European countries such as The Netherlands and Austria, larger class sizes have paradoxically been linked to reduced social isolation owing to the availability of broader peer networks. Conversely, highly competitive academic environments in Japan, Korea, and parts of China have been associated with increased bullying among underperforming students. Effective anti-bullying measures such as clear policies, playground supervision, and teacher–student fairness are critical in shaping school climate. Socioeconomic disparities and unequal access to educational resources are also associated with a higher prevalence of bullying [38].

In Indonesia, parenting practices are deeply rooted in ethno-parenting, a culturally specific approach grounded in local values such as spirituality, collectivism, harmony, and mutual respect [39]. Parenting styles vary by region and are influenced by education, socioeconomic status, and family structure. In East Nusa Tenggara, patriarchal norms and limited paternal education have contributed to harsh disciplinary practices, including physical punishment [40,41]. In contrast, the Sasak people of Lombok emphasize firm yet gentle correction, blending authoritative and mildly authoritarian parenting. Mothers often maintain emotional closeness, particularly with sons, while the extended family plays a prominent role, sometimes resulting in inconsistent discipline [42]. Among Javanese families, traditional values such as isin (shame), wedi (fear), and sungkan (politeness) guide child-rearing practices. Children are taught to respect their elders and maintain social harmony through religious teachings, poetic wisdom, and moral instruction. Javanese parenting, which is characterized by gentle discipline and value transmission, aligns closely with authoritative parenting, fostering emotional warmth and moral development [43].

Mental health plays a pivotal role in bullying behavior. Children with underlying psychological problems, particularly anxiety, depression, unresolved anger, or trauma, are more prone to emotional dysregulation and aggressive behaviors. Hamstra and Fitzgerald [44] emphasized that adverse childhood experiences may lead to post-traumatic stress symptoms and poor emotional regulation, increasing the likelihood of bullying involvement. Children with depression may display irritability or aggression, whereas those with post-traumatic stress disorder may struggle with impulse control. Dissociative symptoms or unresolved anger may also result in maladaptive coping mechanisms such as bullying. Peer status, anxiety and fear of social rejection contribute to ag-gression [44]. Chen et al. [45] revealed that high irritability coupled with low anxiety predicts greater bullying behavior, whereas high anxiety inhibits it.

Children with externalizing disorders, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiance disorder (ODD), and conduction disorder (CD), are also at an increased risk of becoming bullying perpetrators. CD is characterized by persistent violations of societal norms and the rights of others, with children often displaying proactive aggression for control or gain, showing little remorse. ODD involves chronic defiance and hostility toward authority figures, which may manifest as bullying behavior, especially in structured settings such as schools [46]. ADHD, which is characterized by impulsivity, emotional dysregula-tion, and poor peer adaptation, shares several behavioral overlaps with bullying. According to a national survey in the U.S., 46.9% of children with ADHD reported being bullied, whereas 16.2% admitted to bullying others [47,48]. A local study in Surabaya identified ADHD symptoms in 15.1% of elementary students [49]. The combination of emotional outbursts, defiance, peer rejection, and difficulty in complying with social norms can exacerbate bullying tendencies among children with ADHD [47,48].

THEORIES OF BULLYING

The social learning theory (SLT), proposed by Bandura (1978), emphasizes the reciprocal interaction between personal factors, behavior, and the environment in shaping individual actions. In Bandura’s seminal Bobo doll experiment, children who observed aggressive adult behaviors were more likely to replicate similar aggression, illustrating that behaviors such as bullying can be acquired through observational learning. Social reinforcement from peers, parents, teachers, and the media plays a crucial role in sustaining such behaviors. For example, peer admiration, parental permissiveness, and teacher inaction reinforce bullying. Bystanders are particularly influential; those who support or passively tolerate bullying often exacerbate the situation, whereas defenders may help reduce bullying. Social media platforms further normalize bullying by offering anonymity and social validation for aggressive behaviors, often without real-world consequences [50,51].

Children internalize modeled behaviors based on their perceived social expectations, self-evaluations, and sense of self-efficacy. Bullies tend to expect peer approval and increased social status, which reinforce their aggressive conduct [13,52]. Many also adopt aggressive behavior as a learned coping mechanism, particularly in violent and abusive environments. Exposure to physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, either directly or vicariously, may normalize aggression as a means of control or emotional expression [44,53].

The attachment theory also provides a foundational perspective on bullying behavior by examining the role of early caregiver-child relationships. Secure attachment formed through responsive and nurturing caregiving fosters positive internal working models that promote self-worth, trust in others, and a sense of safety. Conversely, neglectful or abusive caregiving can lead to insecure attachment styles, emotional dysregulation, and a heightened vulnerability to aggression [54,55]. Children with secure attachments typically demonstrate better emotional regulation, social competence, and prosocial behavior. In contrast, insecurely attached children are more likely to struggle with maladaptive emotional processing and poor problem-solving, increasing the risk of becoming bullies or victims. Peer attachments can partially compensate for insecure parental bonds by promoting empathy, perspective taking, and defending behavior in bullying situations [55].

According to Bowlby’s attachment theory, children develop attachments to their caregivers as a means of emotional security and social development. Ainsworth identified three primary attachment styles: secure, avoidant, and anxiety-ambivalent. Secure attachment is associated with adaptive emotional regulation, empathy, and prosocial behavior, which collectively buffer against bullying. In contrast, avoidant attachment, characterized by emotional distancing and low empathy, may lead to the use of aggression as a defensive mechanism. Anxious-ambivalent attachment, characterized by fear of rejection and excessive dependency, increases vulnerability to victimization and social manipulation [54-56].

IMPACT OF BULLYING ON PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS

Bullying functions as a chronic psychosocial stressor that activates the hypothalamic (pituitary) axis, triggering cortisol release to manage stress. While acute stress elevates cortisol levels, repeated bullying can dysregulate this system, leading to long-term neuroendocrine imbalance. Prolonged exposure may cause epigenetic changes such as DNA methylation in stress-regulating genes, impairing cortisol regulation and increasing vulnerability to anxiety and depression. Interestingly, perpetrators often show hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) hypoactivity and lower baseline cortisol levels, which correlate with impulsivity, poor emotional regulation, and proactive aggression, goal-driven behavior aimed at social dominance along with a higher risk of sub-stance use and delinquency [46].

Bullying has wide-ranging short- and long-term effects. It contributes to internalizing problems (e.g., depression and anxiety) and externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression). Victims often experience low self-esteem, isolation, academic decline, and physical complaints, with social withdrawal worsening emotional distress. Some adopt maladaptive coping strategies, such as aggression or avoidance. Perpetrators face an elevated risk of chronic aggression, antisocial behavior, poor emotional regulation, and academic problems. In the long term, they are more prone to substance abuse, criminal behavior, and unstable relationships, often stemming from trauma or early exposure to violence, fueling cycles of intergenerational aggression, including future intimate partner violence [44].

LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON BULLYING BEHAVIOR

Bullying is widely recognized as intentional, repetitive aggression involving a power imbalance in physical, verbal, relational, and cyber forms. Although not always criminalized, it is increasingly viewed as a human rights violation, particularly against children. International frameworks such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasize protection from violence and degrading treatment. Schools bear primary responsibility for prevention, although their legal responses vary. In the U.S., all states mandate school policies with criminal sanctions limited to severe cases. European and Asian countries often prioritize educational and rehabilitative approaches. Overall, legal frameworks aim not only to punish, but also to rehabilitate and break the cycle of violence [57].

In Indonesia, bullying committed by minors is addressed through a restorative justice approach in accordance with Law No. 11/2012 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (UU SPPA), which emphasizes diversion (settlement outside the court) and the principle of child protection. Complementary legal provisions are found in Law No. 35/2014 on Child Protection, which prohibits physical, psychological, and sexual violence against children [57].

Several laws serve as legal foundations for bullying cases. Article 76C of Law No. 35/2014 prohibits acts of violence against children, with sanctions ranging from imprisonment (up to 15 years if the victim dies) to fines of up to Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 3 billion—especially when committed by parents or teachers. Law No. 19/2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) criminalizes cyberbullying under Article 27(3) with a maximum penalty of four years in prison or a fine of up to IDR 750 million. According to the UU SPPA, perpetrators of bullying are classified as Children in Conflict with the Law (Article 1(2)) and efforts must be made to resolve the matter through diversion and restorative mechanisms (Articles 7 and 9), including mediation and family involvement. Ministerial Regulation No. 82/2015 strengthens school-based prevention efforts by mandating the establish-ment of reporting systems and anti-violence task forces. If diversion is deemed inappropriate, particularly in cases involving serious threats or injury, the cases may proceed to a juvenile court, where special procedures safeguard the child’s legal rights. Children under 12 years of age cannot be prosecuted but may be subject to non-penal measures, such as return to guardians, psychological support, or mandatory education. Article 71 of the UU SPPA classifies juvenile sanctions into principal and additional forms. Principal sanctions include placement in a juvenile facility, job training, rehabilitation, supervised release, or fines (typically half of adult penalties). In cases in which fines cannot be paid, community service may be imposed as a substitute. Additional sanctions include returning the child to their family, psychological rehabilitation, restitution, or community involvement [58].

Several factors influence sentencing severity, including the child’s age (only those aged 12–18 years can be prosecuted), the nature and impact of bullying (e.g., physical violence regulated by Articles 76C and 80 of the Child Protection Law; cyberbullying under Article 27 of the ITE Law), and the degree of injury or trauma inflicted upon the victim. The intent behind the act, whether deliberate or a result of peer pressure, also affects judicial outcomes. The child’s background is also considered; minors from abusive or unstable households may be routed toward rehabilitative programs. Finally, parental involvement plays a role; courts may recommend non-custodial alternatives such as community service or conditional release, if parents demonstrate the capacity for effective supervision [58,59].

ASSESSMENT OF BULLYING BEHAVIOR

Effective management of bullying behavior in children and adolescents involves a comprehensive, multilevel strategy aimed at reducing aggression and enhancing emotional and social skills, particularly among perpetrators. School-based anti-bullying programs are essential to this effort and are designed using a socioecological model that targets multiple layers of influence, including individual, peer, family, classroom, and schoolwide factors. These programs establish a positive school climate by implementing clear policies, classroom behavior rules, staff training, parental involvement, and peer support mechanisms for protecting victims [3].

Accurate assessment tools are indispensable for identifying bullying behaviors and tailoring appropriate interventions. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire-Revised (OBVQ-R) is one of the most widely used self-report instruments for schools, demonstrating strong reliability (ω=0.81 for victimization and ω=0.75 for aggression). The OBVQ-R operationalizes bullying using three defining features: intentional harm, repetition, and power imbalance (Table 1). A 4-point Likert scale is used to capture the frequency of victimization and aggression [58,60]. The Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire (BPBQ) evaluates students’ in-volvement in bullying across several participant roles (e.g., bully, assistant, defender, bystander, and victim) using a frequency-based rating scale over a specified time frame. Detailed instrument items and scoring procedures are available in the original source [61]. It assesses the frequency of role-specific behaviors over the past 30 days using a 5-point scale (0=never to 4=seven or more times), based on a standardized definition of bullying [62]. Another validated tool, the Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument (APRI) is a 36-item measure assessing physical, verbal, and relational bullying from both perpetration and victimization perspectives. Full items and scoring guidelines are available from the original APRI source [63], used with permission. Confirmatory factor analysis supports the APRI’s psychometric robustness, making it suitable for both research- and school-based intervention planning [64].

Table 1.

Item list for victim and bully scales used to assess bullying experiences: Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire

Victim scale	Bully scale
1. Someone hit, kicked, or pushed me	1. I hit, kicked, or pushed someone
2. Someone pulled my hair or scratched me	2. I pulled someone’s hair or scratched them
3. I was threatened	3. I threatened someone
4. I was forced to hand over my money or belongings	4. I forced someone to give me their money or belongings
5. Someone took my money or belongings without my permission	5. I took money or belongings from someone without their permission
6. Someone damaged my belongings	6. I damaged someone’s belongings
7. Someone shouted at me	7. I shouted at someone
8. I was insulted because of my skin color or race	8. I insulted someone because of their skin color or race
9. I was insulted because of my physical characteristics	9. I insulted someone because of their physical characteristics
10. I was shamed because of my sexual preference or behavior	10. I shamed someone because of their sexual preference or behavior
11. Someone made fun of my accent	11. I made fun of someone’s accent
12. People laughed at and pointed at me	12. I laughed at or pointed at someone
13. Someone gave me a nickname I didn’t like	13. I gave someone a nickname they didn’t like
14. I was cornered or pushed against a wall	14. I cornered or pushed someone against a wall
15. I was followed inside or outside of school	15. I followed someone inside or outside of school
16. I was sexually harassed	16. I sexually harassed someone
17. I was not allowed to join a group of classmates	17. I did not allow someone to join a group of classmates
18. I was completely ignored by others	18. I completely ignored someone
19. Someone falsely accused me of stirring up classmates	19. I falsely accused someone of stirring up classmates
20. Someone said bad things about me or my family	20. I said bad things about someone or their family
21. Someone tried to make others dislike me	21. I tried to make others dislike someone
22. I was forced to physically harm a classmate	22. I forced someone to physically harm a classmate
23. Someone used the internet or phone to hurt/offend me	23. I used the internet or phone to hurt/offend a classmate

Adapted from Gaete et al. Front Psychol 2021;12:578661 [84]., under the terms of the Creative Commons License (CC BY).

For younger children, CBPT is a developmentally appropriate intervention based on Beck’s cognitive therapy principles. CBPT adapts cognitive-behavioral techniques to the play context, enabling children to acquire emotion regulation skills, develop coping strategies, and improve their problem-solving abilities through structured therapeutic play sessions. This is particularly beneficial for children who lack the verbal and cognitive maturity required for traditional talk-based cognitive interventions [60,62].

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL INTERVENTIONS FOR BULLYING PERPETRATORS

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Children (MBCT-C) is an effective intervention for reducing bullying that fosters present-moment awareness and non-judgmental emotion regulation. With Level 4 evidence (small-scale quasi-experimental studies) for related outcomes, MBCT-C reduced aggression, which is a key precursor to bullying. Crucially, MBCT-C has not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or large-scale studies, specifically for its effects on bullying reduction. Its rationale as an intervention for bullying is based on its ability to disrupt reactive behavior patterns, enhance empathy, and improve self-control, which are the underlying factors of perpetration. Faraji et al. [64] found that a structured MBCT-C significantly lowered bullying scores in aggressive elementary students by improving their emotional awareness and decision-making. The core sessions included recognizing automatic behaviors, distinguishing thoughts and feelings, mindful breathing, managing stress, and cultivating compassion.

CBPT adapts Beck’s cognitive-behavioral principles to meet the developmental needs of children. Through structured play-based activities, CBPT facilitates learning about emotional regulation, behavioral self-control, and coping strategies. It uses modeling, storytelling, games, and role-play to teach adaptive thinking and behavior in a developmentally appropriate format. Evidence suggests that CBPT can reduce aggression and improve self-control, which are key factors associated with bullying. While Level 3 evidence from quasi-experimental and pre- and post-intervention studies demonstrates a reduction in related aggressive behavior, direct evidence from studies with bullying reduction as the primary outcome is still lacking, and more robust research is needed to confirm a direct effect on bullying [5,60].

Zamani et al. [62] reported significant reductions in anxiety (50%), bullying (24.6%), impulsivity (19.3%), and antisocial behavior (14.9%) following a CBPT intervention in children diagnosed with Reactive Attachment Disorder. The program consisted of 10 sessions, each targeting specific emotional or behavioral skills such as rapport building, emotion-naming games, chair games for anger control, balloon-based anger release, alarm-clock games for impulse regulation, slow-motion behavioral pacing, deep breathing via bubble play, expressing fears through anxiety cans, transforming fears via creative drawings, and concluding with skill reinforcement and closure.

Collectively, MBCT-C (Level 4, suggestive) and CBPT (Level 3, strongly suggestive) offered complementary and empirically supported strategies to reduce the underlying factors of bullying by enhancing children’s self-awareness, emotional regulation, empathy, and behavioral control.

SCHOOL-LEVEL BULLYING INTERVENTIONS

A whole-school approach to bullying prevention emphasizes institutional commitment toward creating a safe and respectful learning environment. Key strategies include establishing clear anti-bullying policies, active supervision in high-risk areas, structured educational activities, and fostering a schoolwide culture that actively rejects bullying [3].

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) is a well-established, schoolwide intervention designed for elementary to middle school students. OBPP has Level 2 evidence (extended selection cohorts/quasi-experimental design) [65]. Although meta-analytic reviews support the general efficacy of school-based anti-bullying programs, no systematic review has focused exclusively on OBPP. It operates across three levels: 1) schoolwide, involving anonymous surveys, anti-bullying committees, staff training, and increased supervision in identified hotspots; 2) classroom-level, with regular class meetings and the establishment of clear behavioral expectations; and 3) individual-level, targeting bullies and victims through counseling and parental involvement. In Yogyakarta, OBPP was implemented through awareness posters, parental seminars, and redesigning environments in bullying-prone areas. Classroom activities such as weekly “circle time” discussions were included. Implementation challenges included inconsistent execution, limited parental engagement, and reduced student participation [66-69].

NoTrap! (Noncadiamointrappola!) is a peer-led, school-and web-based intervention developed in Italy for grades 7–10 that targets both bullying and cyberbullying. This program is supported by Level 3 evidence from quasi-experimental studies, indicating moderate effectiveness in reducing bullying and cyberbullying [70]. The program incorporates teacher training, classroom awareness activities, peer educator training, and peer-led sessions to foster empathy and collective responsibility. Popular students are nominated as change agents, leveraging their influence to promote anti-bullying norms—a strategy grounded in Bandura’s SLT, which emphasizes modeling by high-status individuals [12,71].

KiVa, a Finnish evidence-based intervention for grades 1–9, focuses on modifying peer-group dynamics and empowering bystanders to intervene. KiVa is a widely implemented program with Level 2 evidence (supported by RCTs and large-scale school evaluations) [72-75]. The program includes structured lessons, teacher-facilitated discussions, online games, and individualized support for perpetrators and victims. KiVa’s effectiveness is maximized through whole-school implementation. Studies in Finland and The Netherlands reported reductions in both bullying and victimization, whereas adaptation in Chile showed limited success due to the exclusion of digital tools [73,75-78]. Parental involvement and strong school–home communication are key to long-term program sustainability [79].

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) provides a foundational framework for bullying prevention [23]. Although meta-analyses indicate that SEL alone is not a best-practice strategy, it is a key component of comprehensive whole-school interventions that address multiple levels of a school’s social ecology [80]. SEL develops five core competencies—self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making—fostering EI, empathy, and prosocial behavior that target the root causes of bullying [81,82]. These competencies are taught through curriculum integration and reinforced via school culture and teacher– student interactions, making SEL most effective when embedded within multi-component, whole-school approaches. In addition to classroom instruction, staff- and schoolwide interventions are essential to improve the climate and adult responsiveness to peer victimization [82].

SEL represents a broad educational framework encompassing programs such as Second Step and Steps to Respect. Evidence from large-scale RCTs among the general student population [82,83] provides Level 2 support for SEL-based interventions in reducing bullying and aggression. While SEL enhances self-regulation, empathy, and social awareness, its effectiveness depends on consistent schoolwide implementation [82,83].

CONCLUSION

Bullying in children and adolescents is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon arising from the interplay of individual, familial, social, and environmental factors. The literature consistently highlights the influence of temperament, EI, mental health, parenting styles, peer dynamics, and cultural context in shaping both perpetration and victimization. Theoretical frameworks such as the social learning and attachment theories provide critical insights into how children internalize aggressive behaviors and respond to relational stressors.

The consequences of bullying extend beyond the immediate victim–perpetrator dyad, involving long-term psychological, physiological, and social implications for all parties, including bystanders. Disruptions in the HPA axis, epigenetic changes, and development of internalizing and externalizing disorders underscore the urgent need for comprehensive interventions.

Multilevel strategies, ranging from individual-based therapies such as MBCT-C and CBPT to schoolwide approaches, demonstrate strong potential in reducing bullying behaviors and fostering prosocial development. Legal frameworks, particularly in Indonesia, emphasize restorative justice while safeguarding children’s rights, aligning with global efforts to address bullying as a violation of human rights.

Effective prevention and intervention require a collaborative, evidence-based, and culturally sensitive approach that involves children, families, schools, and legal systems. Sustained efforts in education, policy implementation, and community engagement are essential for creating a safe and supportive environment in which all children can thrive without fear and violence.