Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 Apr 8;96(1):73–89. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12778

An exploratory study on the perceived effectiveness of teacher interventions in bullying: Insights from the students' perspective

Noelia Muñoz‐Fernández 1,✉, Sebastian Wachs 2, Nuria Marcenaro 1, Rosario Del Rey 1
PMCID: PMC12879532  PMID: 40197823

Abstract

Background

Bullying remains a significant problem in schools, affecting student well‐being. Teachers, as primary responders, are crucial in mitigating these effects. However, the impact of different teacher intervention strategies – as perceived by students – and the roles of teacher–student relationship quality and student involvement in bullying require further investigation.

Aims

This study explored how students perceive the effectiveness of teacher interventions in bullying situations and identified factors influencing these perceptions.

Sample

Data were gathered from 419 students (53.7% boys) aged 9–16 years (M = 11.66, SD = 1.71) across 66 classes in southern Spain.

Methods

Using latent profile analysis, students were categorized into three profiles based on their perceptions of teacher interventions: non‐intervention, intermittent intervention, and consistent intervention. Multilevel multinomial regression assessed the associations between these profiles and perceived intervention success, considering student‐level factors and classroom‐level factors.

Results

Nearly, 70% of students viewed teacher interventions as effective, while 30% experienced ineffective outcomes, sometimes noting worsened bullying. The non‐intervention profile correlated with ongoing or increased bullying, the intermittent profile with partial reduction, and the consistent profile with a higher likelihood of completely halting bullying. A positive teacher–student relationship emerged as protective, whereas bully‐victim status heightened the risk of negative intervention outcomes.

Conclusions

Consistent, visible teacher interventions are key to curbing bullying. Although most students report positive outcomes, some experience unresolved or worsened incidents when interventions are intermittent or absent. These findings underscore the need for strong teacher–student relationships and tailored strategies for vulnerable groups.

Keywords: bullying, intervention success, teacher, teacher–student relationship

INTRODUCTION

School violence is a pervasive global issue that threatens the safety and well‐being of students (WHO, 2020). Among its various forms, bullying stands out as a particularly harmful and persistent phenomenon, characterized by repeated aggression in which victims find it difficult to defend themselves (Olweus, 1993). In Spain, bullying remains a significant concern, with 18.2% of students identified as victims, 4.2% as bullies, and 15.4% as bully‐victims. Gender differences are evident, as girls are more likely to be victims, whereas boys more frequently assume the roles of bullies or bully‐victims (Andrade et al., 2021). The negative impact of bullying on students' psychological, social, and academic development is well‐documented (Agustiningsih et al., 2024; Moore et al., 2017; Mullan et al., 2023). Given these consequences, effective interventions are crucial, and teachers play a central role in mitigating bullying behaviours (Colpin et al., 2021; Veenstra et al., 2014). While research has demonstrated the benefits of teacher‐led interventions, significant knowledge gaps persist. Specifically, further research is needed to understand how students perceive different teacher intervention strategies and how these combined interventions, teacher–student relationship quality, and student involvement in bullying influence their effectiveness. This study addressed these gaps, and the findings aimed to contribute to refining teacher training and intervention programmes, ultimately fostering safer and more inclusive educational environments.

Measuring the effectiveness of teachers' intervention

Teachers are role models and actively shape classroom dynamics (De Luca et al., 2019; Yoon & Bauman, 2014), influencing students' interpersonal relationships (Devleeschouwer et al., 2025). They also serve as attachment figures, potentially fostering secure or insecure bonds with students (Fabris et al., 2022; García‐Moya, 2020). Teachers' responsibilities extend beyond modelling behaviour to identifying and addressing bullying and ensuring students' safety (Bilz et al., 2024; Fischer et al., 2021; Thornberg et al., 2024).

There are two main approaches for assessing the effectiveness of teacher interventions in bullying: one focuses on reductions in bullying involvement (Burger et al., 2022; Campaert et al., 2017; Nappa et al., 2021), while the other relies on direct perceptions of the interventions from students or teachers (e.g. Crothers & Kolbert, 2004; Fekkes et al., 2005; Wachs et al., 2019). The latter method posits that students' views on teachers' ability to intervene and change bullying situations are valuable, as these perceptions capture not only the experiences of those directly involved but also those of uninvolved bystanders – given that bullying rarely occurs in secret (Wachs et al., 2019). In addition, investigating teachers' interventions from the students' perspective may offer another valuable viewpoint, as teacher reports may be biased by social desirability (Wachs et al., 2019). Furthermore, based on teacher reports, most research on teacher responses focused on analysing responses to hypothetical situations, which could differ significantly from their actual interventions (Colpin et al., 2021).

Consequently, students' evaluations of how teacher interventions have influenced or could influence bullying dynamics may indicate intervention success more than just quantitative changes in bullying behaviour alone (Rigby & Johnson, 2016). Building on this perspective, the effectiveness of teacher interventions can be conceptualized as a continuum ranging from successful outcomes, where bullying is halted or reduced, to unsuccessful ones, where bullying persists or intensifies. Based on student reports, research showed that teachers' interventions stopped bullying in 11%–29% of cases and reduced it from 29% to 44% (Smith & Shu, 2000; Rigby & Johnson, 2016; Wachs et al., 2019). Conversely, bullying continues in 23% to 43% of cases (Fekkes et al., 2005; Rigby, 1998; Rigby & Barnes, 2002; Rigby & Johnson, 2016; Smith & Shu, 2000; Wachs et al., 2019), and in 4%–16% of cases, it worsens (Rigby & Johnson, 2016; Smith & Shu, 2000; Wachs et al., 2019). These studies conducted outside of Spain emphasize the necessity of assessing the effectiveness of teacher interventions in the Spanish context.

Individual and classroom correlates of teachers' intervention success

Students' perceptions of how teachers respond to bullying incidents may influence the perceived effectiveness of these interventions. The way teachers handle bullying can shape the trajectory of such incidents, either mitigating or exacerbating the bullying. Some students reported that teachers do not intervene, either ignoring the situation or allowing students to resolve it on their own. This non‐intervention, as perceived by students, was linked with increased bullying and victimization (Nappa et al., 2021) and increased acceptance of bullying (Campaert et al., 2017; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). In contrast, active teacher interventions to bullying, such as victim support, using disciplinary sanctions, mediation, or group discussions revealed mixed outcomes. Supporting victims was associated with improved well‐being and reduced bullying (Rigby & Johnson, 2016; Van der Zander et al., 2015), though not universally (Campaert et al., 2017; van Gils et al., 2022). Similarly, mediation reduced bullying in some studies (van Gils et al., 2022), but others did not find an effect (Campaert et al., 2017), and in some cases, it increased the number of bully‐victims (Burger et al., 2022). Group discussions were found to be associated with increased defender behaviour and reduced likelihood of being a victim (Burger et al., 2022), although others found no significant relationship (Campaert et al., 2017; van Gils et al., 2022). Disciplinary sanctions were associated with reduced bullying and victimization (Burger et al., 2022; Campaert et al., 2017; van Gils et al., 2022), though others did not find the same relationship (Nappa et al., 2021). These inconsistencies underscore the need to explore which intervention strategies and their combinations are most effective.

The mixed results of teacher interventions may be due to the variable‐centred approach typically used in research. Such an approach focuses on individual teacher responses but may not account for the combination of strategies teachers employ. For example, studies showed that teachers often combine multiple strategies (Burger et al., 2015, 2022), which may be more effective than using a single response (Özdemir et al., 2021; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). A person‐centred approach, using latent profiles, could offer a clearer understanding of how combinations of interventions impact their effectiveness.

van Gils et al. (2024) identified three teacher response profiles from students' perspectives: the ‘highly active’ profile (62%) was marked by low non‐intervention, high disciplinary methods, victim support, and mediation, alongside moderate group discussion. The ‘moderately active’ profile (32%) showed low non‐intervention and group discussion, with moderate disciplinary methods, victim support, and mediation. The ‘passive’ profile (6%) consisted of students perceiving moderate non‐intervention and low use of other strategies. This passive profile correlated with increased self‐reported bullying, indicating that active intervention is vital for effectiveness.

Besides teacher interventions, the quality of the teacher–student relationship may impact students' perceptions of the intervention's success. The teacher–student relationship was found to be associated with both bullying and victimization (see meta‐analysis, ten Bokkel et al., 2023). Specifically, a conflictual teacher–student relationship was linked in previous research to higher levels of bullying and victimization (Elledge et al., 2016; Longobardi et al., 2019; Marengo et al., 2018). Moreover, sustaining a conflictual teacher–student relationship correlated with students having a rejected social status within the group, elevating their chances of being involved in bullying (Longobardi et al., 2018). In contrast, a positive teacher–student relationship was positively associated with victims reporting bullying and seeking assistance (Bjereld et al., 2024). Furthermore, several studies examined the effects of teacher–student relationship quality at both individual‐ and classroom‐levels on bullying, confirming that individual‐ and classroom‐level factors are related to involvement in bullying (Thornberg et al., 2022, 2024). These findings prompt the question of whether the quality of the teacher–student relationship also influences students' perceptions of the effectiveness of the teachers' interventions.

Another factor identified in the literature is the students' bullying role. Wachs et al. (2019) concluded that students who were bullies but not victims tended to evaluate the success of teacher interventions more negatively compared with bystanders. Berkowitz (2013) found no differences in the perception of the success of teachers' interventions among victims, bullies, or bully‐victims. However, uninvolved students viewed teachers' interventions more positively. Therefore, it remains unclear whether students' roles in bullying influence their perceptions of the effectiveness of teachers' interventions, and if so, in what way. Moreover, studies analysing effectiveness based on reductions in bullying and victimization failed to explore the bully‐victim role in depth, as they often focus on each behaviour separately. Given the complexity and vulnerability of this group (Burger et al., 2022) and the fact that the prevalence of the bully‐victim role is nearly three times higher than that of the pure bully role in Spain (Andrade et al., 2021), the bully‐victim role deserves further attention.

The role of students' age and gender in the success of teachers' interventions remains unclear. One study found that older students were more likely to report bullying to their teachers (ten Bokkel et al., 2021), which could facilitate teacher interventions. However, other studies indicated that teacher interventions were more effective in primary schools than in secondary schools (Johander et al., 2024; Kärnä et al., 2011; Rigby & Barnes, 2002). Conversely, some research concluded that educational level and age were unrelated to the effectiveness of teacher interventions (Garandeau et al., 2014; Rigby, 2020; Wachs et al., 2019). Regarding gender, while some research indicated that boys were more likely to experience unsuccessful interventions (Johander et al., 2024), others found no gender differences (Rigby, 2020; Wachs et al., 2019). Given the inconsistent results, further investigation is needed into the impact of students' age and gender on their perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher interventions.

Besides individual‐level factors, classroom‐level factors might influence teachers' success. For example, a positive classroom climate, characterized by strong peer support and clear behavioural norms, can empower teachers to address bullying more effectively. Additionally, an organized and supportive classroom environment may facilitate timely intervention, making it easier for teachers to manage and reduce bullying incidents. Previous research rarely examined how classroom‐level variables influenced the effectiveness of teacher interventions. Some studies have conducted multilevel analyses on the perceived effectiveness of teachers' responses but have not included specific classroom‐level variables in their models (Johander et al., 2024; Wachs et al., 2019). Other research (Burger et al., 2022) explored the effect of classroom perceptions of teacher interventions on students' roles in bullying, finding that the classroom's perception of teacher intervention was linked to students' involvement over time. Similarly, Devleeschouwer et al. (2025) investigated the association between teacher intervention at the individual‐ and classroom‐level, drawing on student and teacher reports and their relationship with bullying. They concluded that teacher interventions were associated with bullying levels at both levels. Given the limited available evidence, further research is needed to explore how individual and classroom perceptions of teacher interventions contribute to understanding their effectiveness in addressing bullying.

The present study

Building on mixed findings regarding teacher intervention effectiveness, this study employed a person‐centred approach to deepen understanding of students' perceptions. Unlike studies based on teacher reports, we focus exclusively on student‐reported experiences, capturing their view of classroom dynamics.

This study pursued three interrelated objectives. First, we assessed students' perceptions of teacher intervention success – measuring whether bullying situations were completely halted, partially reduced, unchanged, or worsened. Second, we identified teacher intervention profiles using latent profile analysis based on student evaluations of various strategies (e.g. victim support, mediation, group discussion, disciplinary methods, and non‐intervention). Finally, we examined how these profiles were related to perceived success, incorporating individual and classroom‐level variables.

At the individual level, factors like students' roles in bullying, the teacher–student relationship, age, and gender were evaluated. At the classroom level, aggregating measures – such as the overall classroom composition regarding bullying roles and prevalent teacher intervention profile, as well as the average scores of the teacher‐student relationship – were analysed. This multilevel approach offers a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to successful or unsuccessful teacher interventions.

METHOD

Participants

The initial sample consisted of 1241 students aged 9 and 18 years (M = 12, SD = 1.79), with 48.3% in primary school (n = 600) and 51.7% in secondary school (n = 641). Data were collected from 72 classes across 11 schools in southern Spain. Considering the study's objectives, students who indicated that bullying had not occurred in the last 2 months (n = 373) and were unaware of the outcomes of teacher interventions (n = 384) were excluded. Therefore, analyses were conducted using a subsample of students who reported how they perceived the effectiveness of teacher interventions. For this study, we defined the effectiveness of the intervention based on students' perceptions of whether the bullying had worsened, continued, partially stopped, or completely stopped (see measures). The final sample consisted of 419 students from 66 classes aged between 9 and 16 years (M = 11.66, SD = 1.71; 53.7% boys, n = 223), with 59.7% in primary school (n = 250) and 40.3% in secondary school (n = 169).

Measures

Student‐level measures

The success of teachers' interventions

A Spanish adaptation of the Success of Bullying Interventions measure (Wachs et al., 2019). Participants were asked, ‘Did the bullying stop because of the teacher's responses?’ Response options were: 1 = no, it worsened; 2 = no, it continued; 3 = yes, it partially stopped; 4 = yes, it completely stopped; 5 = do not know; 6 = no bullying incidents in the last 2 months. This question was used to select the final sample of participants. Specifically, students who selected options 5 and 6 were excluded from the final sample.

Teachers' interventions in bullying

A Spanish adaptation of the Teachers' Responses to Bullying Questionnaire (TRBQ; Nappa et al., 2021; van Gils et al., 2022) was used. This instrument consisted of 16 items, measured on a 5‐point Likert scale from 0 = never does this to 4 = always does this. The TRBQ distinguishes between five types of teacher responses perceived by students: non‐intervention (three items, e.g. ‘My teacher ignores the bullying’; α = .70), mediation (three items, e.g. ‘My teacher helps those involved in bullying resolve the issue’; α = .76), group discussion (three items, e.g. ‘My teacher talks to the whole class about how bullying can hurt the victim’; α = .66), victim support (three items, e.g. ‘My teacher tries to help the victim’; α = .83), and disciplinary methods (four items, e.g. ‘My teacher reports the incident to the school administration’; α = .81). The 5‐factor structure fits the data well, X 2(94) = 240.11; CFI = .938; RMSEA = .061; SRMR = .044.

Bullying involvement

The Spanish version of the European Bullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (EBIP‐Q; Ortega‐Ruiz et al., 2016) was used. It consists of 14 items, seven on victimization and seven on bullying perpetration, with a 5‐point Likert scale (from 0 = No, to 4 = Yes, more than once a week). This instrument assesses the frequency with which students were involved in abusive behaviour by their peers. An example item for victimization was ‘I have been hit, kicked, or pushed’, and for bullying, ‘I have insulted and used bad words towards someone’. The internal consistency of this scale was good (α victimization = .86; α bullying = .89). Students' roles in bullying were created from the responses to the victimization and bullying items of the EBIP‐Q (Ortega‐Ruiz et al., 2016). A student was coded as a victim if they reported experiencing bullying once or twice a month or more. A student was considered a bully if they exhibited bullying perpetration at the same frequency. If a student was both victim and bully, they were coded as bully‐victim. Students not fitting these categories were classified as not involved.

Teacher–student relationship

This was evaluated using a Spanish adaptation of the teacher–student relationship from the Multidimensional School Climate Questionnaire (Grazia & Molinari, 2020). It consists of three items on a 6‐point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and asks about the quality of the teacher–student relationship. An example item is ‘Students and teachers feel good together’. The internal consistency of this scale was adequate (α = .80).

Demographic information

Participants were asked about their age and gender to measure demographics.

Classroom‐level measures

Bullying role‐related classroom composition

Bullying roles were aggregated for each class, yielding four variables: percentage of victims, bullies, bully‐victims, and non‐involved. To avoid multicollinearity, the percentage of non‐involved was not included in the multilevel model.

Teacher intervention profile classroom composition

Teacher intervention profiles were aggregated for each class, yielding three variables: percentage of intermittent intervention, non‐intervention, and consistent intervention (see Latent Profile Analysis results). The percentage of the consistent teacher intervention profile was not included in the multilevel model to avoid multicollinearity.

Teacher–student relationship

The average scores for the teacher–student relationship were aggregated at the classroom level.

Procedure

This study used a cross‐sectional design in combination with a quota sampling method. Quota sampling was based on the educational stage, ensuring that approximately half of the sample came from primary education schools and students, while the other half came from secondary education. School administrations were contacted and invited to participate and informed about the nature of the research. Upon acceptance by the school, families received written information regarding the study's objectives, and their consent was requested. All students were informed about the study, the anonymity of their responses, and the voluntary nature of their participation. No rewards were offered for participation.

Additionally, consent was obtained from students over 14 years old. The school collected and kept these documents. Only students who had accepted and consented to participate were involved in data collection. The questionnaires were administered on paper during school hours in the 2023–2024 academic year. This study received approval from the University of Seville Research Ethics Committee (code: 0562‐N23).

Data analysis

First, descriptive analyses were conducted to analyse the success of teachers' interventions. Second, latent profile analysis was used to group students according to their perceptions of teacher interventions. To accomplish this, profiles were identified according to the frequency of the five teacher interventions analysed, as reported by students: non‐intervention, mediation, group discussion, victim support, and disciplinary methods. The number of profiles was decided using two criteria. The first was statistical, using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT), and entropy. High entropy values (greater than .80) and low AIC and BIC values are associated with a better model (Nylund et al., 2007). The p‐value of the BLRT index was also used to analyse whether adding a new profile improved the previous model. If the p‐value was significant, adding a new profile was considered an improvement. The second was the size of the profiles. Profiles with small sizes (less than 5% of the sample) were discarded (Spurk et al., 2020). Third, after obtaining the teachers' intervention profiles, contingency tables and Chi‐square analyses were used to determine the relationship between teachers' intervention profiles and the success of teachers' interventions.

Finally, we conducted a multilevel multinominal regression analysis (estimator: robust maximum likelihood estimator) to investigate the associations between student‐ and classroom‐level correlates and categories of teachers' intervention success (dependent variable; comparison group: completely stopped). Multilevel analyses accounted for the nested data structure (students nested within classrooms). At the student‐level, we included age, gender, student's role in bullying (comparison group: being uninvolved), teacher intervention profile based on students' reports (comparison group: consistent intervention), and teacher–student relationship. At the classroom‐level, we also included the percentage of students' roles in bullying (comparison group: uninvolved students), the percentage of teacher intervention profiles based on student reports (comparison group: consistent intervention), and the average teacher–student relationship per classroom.

SPSS 29 was used for descriptive analyses and calculation of Cronbach's alpha. The LPA and multilevel logistic regression were performed in Mplus Version 8.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). The percentage of missing data was low, less than 3.1%. The highest rates of missing data were found in the items about teacher responses, ranging from 3.1% to .7%. Missing data were handled with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation.

RESULTS

The success of teachers' interventions

Regarding the success of the teachers' interventions, 30% of the students perceived their teacher intervention as ineffective, while 70% reported it as effective. Specifically, 32 students (8%) indicated that bullying worsened, 87 students (21%) indicated that bullying continued, 155 students (37%) indicated that bullying partially stopped, and 145 students (35%) indicated that bullying completely stopped following their teachers' interventions.

Latent profiles of teachers' interventions to bullying

Preliminary profiles of teacher intervention to bullying were identified through latent profile analysis. Solutions ranging from one to four profiles were estimated concerning the profiles of teachers' interventions to bullying. The three‐ and four‐profile solutions fit similarly (see Table 1). However, in the four‐profile solution, one profile was formed by only 12 people (2.9%). Therefore, the three‐profile solution of teachers' interventions to bullying was selected as the best solution.

TABLE 1.

Fit indices of the latent profile model of teacher interventions to bullying.

Number of profiles AIC BIC BLRT Entropy
1 6455.320 6495.699
2 16482.795 16564.475 2046.477*** .929
3 5568.125 5656.958 243.846*** .916
4 5520.963 5634.023 59.162** .921
Open in a new tab

***p < .001. **p < .01.

Figure 1 shows the means of the indicators separated by profile membership. The first profile was labelled ‘intermittent response’, including 26.5% (n = 111) of the students. The intermittent intervention profile can be characterized by moderate means (‘sometimes’ option) of the use of mediation, group discussion, victim support, and disciplinary methods, as well as low values of non‐intervention. The second profile was labelled ‘non‐intervention’, representing 10% (n = 42) of the students. The non‐intervention profile can be characterized by low means in all teachers' interventions, with non‐intervention slightly more prominent. The third profile was labelled ‘consistent intervention’, representing 63.2% (n = 265) of the students. The favourable intervention profile can be characterized by high means (‘almost always’ option) in mediation, group discussion, victim support, disciplinary methods, and low non‐intervention means.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Latent profiles of teacher interventions to bullying. DM, Disciplinary methods; GD, Group Discussion; MED, Mediation; NI, Non‐intervention; VS, Victim Support.

Associations between teachers' intervention profiles and intervention success

Table 2 presents the association between the success of teachers' interventions and teacher intervention profiles. There was a significant association between the two variables, χ 2(1, N = 419) = 63.31, p < .001, Cramer's V = .275; the non‐intervention teacher profile was positively related to bullying worsening and continuing after the teacher intervention and negatively linked to bullying partially or completely stopping. The intermittent intervention teacher profile was positively associated with bullying partially stopping and negatively related to bullying completely stopping. Finally, the consistent intervention teacher profile was negatively associated with bullying worsening and continuing after the teacher intervention and positively related to bullying completely stopping.

TABLE 2.

Teachers' intervention profiles and intervention success.

It got worse It was not stopped It was stopped partly It was stopped completely
N % Corrected residual N % Corrected residual N % Corrected residual N % Corrected residual
Teachers' intervention profiles Non‐intervention 11 34.4 4.7 20 23 4.4 4 2.6 −4.0 8 5.5 −2.3
Intermittent intervention 10 31.3 .6 25 28.7 .5 51 32.9 2.3 25 17.2 −3.1
Consistent intervention 11 34.4 −3.5 42 48.3 −3.3 100 64.5 .4 112 77.2 4.3
Total 32 100 87 100 155 100 145 100
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold means significant effect.

Individual and classroom variables associated with the teachers' intervention success

Table 3 presents the findings of the multilevel multinominal regression analysis. ‘It was completely stopped’ was used as the comparison group. As shown in Table 3, several significant student‐ and classroom‐level correlates emerged.

TABLE 3.

Results of a multilevel multinomial logistic regression analysis predicting the success of teacher interventions.

Variable It got worsea It was not stoppeda It was stopped partlya
Est. SE p OR Est. SE p OR Est. SE p OR
Student‐level
Age .07 .26 .776 1.18 .01 .15 .960 1.01 −.01 .23 .980 .99
Gender .30 .22 .166 1.89 .35 .18 .047 2.09 .25 .22 .246 1.34
Student's role in bullying
Victimb .40 .24 .089 2.54 .13 .12 .253 1.35 −.09 .20 .662 .89
Bullyb .20 .23 .381 2.69 .18 .16 .271 2.34 .33 .26 .208 2.38
Bully‐victimb .51 .23 .029 4.91 .28 .18 .117 2.33 .29 .18 .109 1.63
Teacher intervention profile
Intermittent interventionc .21 .22 .323 1.69 .15 .19 .414 1.44 .45 .16 .005 1.81
Non‐interventionc .55 .17 .001 6.82 .41 .13 .002 4.07 −.35 .30 .254 .52
Teacher–student relationship −.36 .22 .105 .70 −.68 .14 <.001 .52 −.50 .19 .009 .77
Classroom‐level
Bullying role class percentage
Victim (%)d −.05 .20 .807 .29 .22 .186 .30 .63 .636
Bully (%)d .24 .20 .227 .26 .27 .339 .27 .60 .660
Bully‐victim (%)d .17 .17 .297 −.05 .28 .854 −.08 .74 .911
Teacher intervention profile class percentage
Intermittent intervention (%)e .63 .23 .006 .59 .35 .097 .96 .34 .005
Non‐intervention (%)e .71 .26 .007 .68 .29 .020 −.04 .89 .966
Teacher–student relationship .02 .27 .947 −.30 .31 .333 .11 .67 .866
Open in a new tab

Note: Comparison groups: a = It was stopped completely; b = students not involved in bullying; c = consistent teacher intervention profile; d = aggregated class percentage of students not involved in bullying; e = aggregated class percentage of consistent teacher intervention profile. OR, odds ratio; Est., raw estimates. AIC = 1022.99; BIC = 1203.83; Loglikelihood H0–466.49; H0 Scaling correction factor for robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR) = 1.05. At the classroom level, there is a random intercept for the multinominal dependent variable (latent random intercept); estimates represent linear regression slopes. Bold means significant effect.

It got worse

At the student level, bully‐victim status and non‐intervention were positively associated with the likelihood that bullying situations worsened following teacher intervention in comparison to students' non‐involved and consistent intervention profile. At the classroom level, intermittent intervention and non‐intervention showed a positive association with the worsening of bullying, suggesting that inconsistent or absent intervention strategies at the classroom level were linked to increased odds of escalation compared with consistent intervention.

It was not stopped

At the student level, gender and the non‐intervention profile were positively related to the likelihood that bullying was not stopped following teacher intervention, suggesting that females were more likely to report that bullying was not stopped and that students who perceived teachers' non‐interventions were more likely to experience bullying that was not stopped, compared with those in consistent intervention settings. In addition, a positive teacher–student relationship was negatively associated with increased odds of bullying not stopping following teacher intervention. At the classroom level, non‐intervention was associated with the likelihood that bullying would not stop following teacher intervention, indicating that a lack of intervention across the classroom level was associated with continued bullying after teacher involvement, compared with classrooms with consistent intervention.

It was stopped partially

At the student level, intermittent intervention was associated with partially successful teacher interventions, suggesting that intermittent interventions increased the likelihood of partial success compared with consistent interventions. A positive teacher–student relationship was negatively related to the likelihood of partial success. At the classroom level, intermittent intervention was associated with the likelihood of partial success in stopping bullying, suggesting that occasional intervention efforts were linked to partially successful outcomes in addressing bullying compared with classrooms with consistent intervention.

DISCUSSION

The present study aimed to examine Spanish students' perceptions of teacher interventions in bullying situations and their effectiveness in mitigating bullying. To this end, we conducted a latent profile analysis based on student reports of teacher responses, identifying three distinct intervention profiles: non‐intervention, intermittent intervention, and consistent intervention. Additionally, we explored how these intervention styles were associated with perceived intervention success. Finally, we examined the role of individual (e.g. student bullying role, teacher–student relationship, gender) and classroom‐level factors in shaping students' perceptions of intervention effectiveness.

The first objective was to analyse the perceived effectiveness of teacher interventions in reducing bullying. Generally, students perceive teachers as effective in managing bullying situations, with seven in 10 students reporting that bullying ceased, either partially or completely. However, 22% of students indicated that the bullying continued, and 8% perceived that the situation deteriorated following the intervention. These findings align with recent studies (Rigby & Johnson, 2016; Wachs et al., 2019) and highlight the need for further investigation into the effectiveness of targeted bullying interventions, especially concerning factors associated with unsuccessful outcomes (Johander et al., 2024). Therefore, this study aimed to examine factors that may impact the perceived effectiveness of teacher interventions.

The second aim of this study was to determine whether the effectiveness of teachers' interventions was associated with specific intervention strategies, as reported by students. Using a person‐centered analysis, students were grouped according to their perceptions of teacher interventions, which included victim support, mediation, discussion groups, disciplinary methods, and non‐intervention. Latent profile analysis revealed three intervention profiles: non‐intervention, intermittent intervention, and consistent intervention. The most common and favourable intervention profile was consistent intervention (63.2%), followed by intermittent (26.5%) and non‐intervention (10%). Research on teacher responses from the students' perspective using latent profiles is limited, making comparison with this study challenging. However, the profile composition resembles findings from van Gils et al. (2024), with the main difference being that in Spain, the percentage of students reporting non‐intervention was nearly twice as high as in Belgium (10% vs. 6%). Future research should investigate why Spanish students notice less intervention from teachers and whether these patterns exist in other countries and how they are distributed among students.

The profile composition revealed that teachers' intervention styles depended on the intensity and frequency of their strategies, not specific response types. In the consistent intervention profile, students reported that teachers consistently applied multiple strategies, ‘always’ or ‘almost always’, while in the intermittent intervention profile, students perceived that they used multiple strategies ‘sometimes’. Finally, in the non‐intervention profile, students reported that their teachers refrained from active strategies. These results align with those identified by van Gils et al. (2024) in Belgium, which strengthens the findings of both studies and suggests the need for future research utilizing person‐centred analyses and incorporating multi‐informant designs to understand teacher interventions better.

Concerning the relationship between teacher intervention profiles and success, results suggest that students grouped into the profile of teachers who did not intervene were at a higher risk of reporting that the situation worsened or continued; intermittent intervention was linked to improving the situation, though not a complete resolution; and consistent intervention was associated with a complete resolution. These findings explain the mixed results of previous studies on teacher intervention (Burger et al., 2022; Campaert et al., 2017; De Luca et al., 2019; van Gils et al., 2022), which often overlooked the combined effects of multiple strategies. For instance, disciplinary methods combined with psychoeducational responses may be more effective, as they both punish and repair harm (Garandeau et al., 2014). Similarly, individual responses, such as victim support or disciplinary methods, could be more effective if paired with group responses, as this addresses everyone involved in the bullying dynamic (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017). Addressing these issues is crucial for improving the prevention and management of bullying situations in educational settings through teacher training and enhanced protocols.

Regarding the third objective, the study examined additional factors influencing the perceived success of teacher interventions. The teacher–student relationship emerged as a key protective factor, with positive bonds enhancing interventions' effectiveness. Strengthening teacher–student connections is crucial for addressing bullying effectively (Elledge et al., 2016; Longobardi et al., 2019; ten Bokkel et al., 2021). Programs could be developed to foster this relationship by promoting empathy, emotional support, and open communication, which could help teachers better support students.

The role of bully‐victim was also identified as a critical factor. Research by Sung et al. (2018) and Yang et al. (2016) highlights that this group faces an elevated risk of emotional and behavioural issues, further complicating teachers' intervention efforts. These students require a cautious and structured approach, as Kennedy (2021) emphasized. Effective teacher training is needed to address this profile more effectively. Future research should investigate this specific role further.

Regarding gender, findings revealed that being female was linked to reports of bullying continuing despite teacher intervention. This result may stem from several factors. On the one hand, teachers' interventions may vary depending on the gender of the student and the type of bullying involved, impacting effectiveness and perception. On the other hand, coping strategies may differ between boys and girls. For instance, ten Bokkel et al. (2021) concluded that boys are more likely than girls to seek help and confront bullying situations, which could affect perceived effectiveness. Further research should explore how gender moderates intervention effectiveness.

No significant relationship was found between age and perceived success, consistent with previous research (Garandeau et al., 2014; Rigby, 2020; Wachs et al., 2019). Future research should explore other individual variables, such as student coping strategies (Nixon et al., 2020) or teacher self‐efficacy (Fischer et al., 2021) that may influence intervention success.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

While this study advanced understanding of the factors behind successful and unsuccessful teacher interventions, it has some limitations. As a cross‐sectional study, it could not analyse how cases evolve. Notably, three out of 10 students reported unsuccessful interventions, highlighting the need for longitudinal studies to understand their long‐term impact better. Moreover, only students' perceptions were considered; thus, incorporating the perspectives of teachers and families would be vital to gaining a more comprehensive view of the dynamics involved in intervention success. Additionally, although the study initially examined a broad sample of students, this was reduced to 420 when filtered by students who had witnessed or were aware of bullying situations. This limitation indicates the need for larger samples in future studies to increase our capacity to understand more adverse outcomes, such as situations where bullying worsened or continued following teachers' interventions. Furthermore, considering the differences between profiles obtained in Spain and Belgium, future cross‐cultural studies could delve deeper into these results by analysing other associated factors. Finally, this research only considered involvement in bullying and not cyberbullying. Future studies could benefit from analysing students' co‐involvement in bullying and cyberbullying, as well as examining teachers' interventions in response to cyberbullying and the perceived success in dealing with cyberbullying.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Given that classrooms with teachers using multiple intervention strategies report the best outcomes, school leaders should prioritize training programs that emphasize proactive and consistent responses. Professional development should equip teachers with tools to recognize bullying quickly and address bullying. The positive effect of the teacher–student relationship on the effectiveness of bullying interventions suggests that schools should invest in initiatives that foster trust and open communication. These can help detect bullying early and encourage students to seek help. As bully‐victims are more likely to experience intervention failure, training should address their complex needs, combining emotional support with conflict resolution and restorative measures. Since both individual‐level and classroom‐level factors influence intervention success, schools should adopt a holistic approach, standardizing effective practices while allowing flexibility. Regular monitoring can ensure consistent application of strategies across classrooms. This study highlights that the effectiveness of teacher interventions depends on the combination and visibility of strategies. Policymakers should consider revising guidelines to include both the quality and consistency of responses, driving systemic changes in anti‐bullying efforts.

CONCLUSION

This study examined students' perceptions of teacher interventions in bullying situations, identifying latent intervention profiles and correlates of perceived teacher intervention effectiveness. Results showed that while most students saw positive outcomes, some reported ineffective responses. Latent profile analysis identified three intervention styles: consistent, intermittent, and non‐intervention. Consistent responses were linked to a reduction in bullying, while intermittent or absent responses unresolved or worsened situations. A positive teacher–student relationship was a protective factor, while bully‐victims were more likely to report negative intervention outcomes, underscoring the need for tailored strategies. Overall, our findings clarify how the combination and visibility of teacher responses, combined with relational and individual factors, influence the perceived success of anti‐bullying efforts. Future research should employ longitudinal, multi‐perspective designs – including cross‐cultural and cyberbullying contexts – to further inform teacher training and policy development for safer school environments.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Noelia Muñoz‐Fernández: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; investigation; data curation; project administration; formal analysis; writing – review and editing; writing – original draft; supervision; validation. Sebastian Wachs: Writing – review and editing; formal analysis; conceptualization. Nuria Marcenaro: Writing – review and editing; data curation. Rosario Del Rey: Conceptualization; methodology; investigation; writing – review and editing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities/State Research Agency/10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union ‘NextGenerationEU/Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan’ financed the grant of N.M.F [RYC2021‐034977‐I]. This research was funded by the VII Plan Propio de Investigación y Transferencia of Universidad de Sevilla [VII PPIT‐US].

Muñoz‐Fernández, N. , Wachs, S. , Marcenaro, N. , & Del Rey, R. (2026). An exploratory study on the perceived effectiveness of teacher interventions in bullying: Insights from the students' perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 73–89. 10.1111/bjep.12778

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

  1. Agustiningsih, N. , Yusuf, A. , Ahsan, A. , & Fanani, Q. (2024). The impact of bullying and cyberbullying on mental health: A systematic review. International Journal of Public Health Science, 13(2), 513. 10.11591/ijphs.v13i2.23683 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrade, B. , Guadix, I. , Rial, A. , & Suárez, F. (2021). Impacto de la tecnología en la adolescencia: Relaciones, riesgos y oportunidades. Un estudio comprensivo e inclusivo hacia el uso saludable de las TRIC [Impact of technology on adolescence: Relationships, risks and opportunities. A comprehensive and inclusive study towards the healthy use of ICTs]. UNICEF España, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela y Consejo General de Colegios Profesionales de Ingeniería en Informática. https://www.unicef.es/publicacion/impacto‐de‐la‐tecnologia‐en‐la‐adolescencia [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkowitz, R. (2013). Student and teacher responses to violence in school: The divergent views of bullies, victims, and bully‐victims. School Psychology International, 35(5), 485–503. 10.1177/0143034313511012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilz, L. , Fischer, S. M. , Kansok‐Dusche, J. , Wachs, S. , & Wettstein, A. (2024). Teachers' intervention strategies for handling hate‐speech incidents in schools. Social Psychology of Education, 27(5), 1–24. 10.1007/s11218-024-09929-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bjereld, Y. , Thronberg, R. , & Hong, J. (2024). Why don't all victims tell teachers about being bullied? A mixed methods study on how direct and indirect bullying and student‐teacher relationship quality are linked with bullying disclosure. Teaching and Teacher Education, 148, 104664. 10.1016/j.tate.2024.104664 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burger, C. , Strohmeier, D. , Spröber, N. , Bauman, S. , & Rigby, K. (2015). How teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self‐reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 191–202. 10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burger, C. , Strohmeier, D. , & Kollerová, L. (2022). Teachers can make a difference in bullying: Effects of teacher interventions on students' adoption of bully, victim, bully‐victim or defender roles across time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 2312–2327. 10.1007/s10964-022-01674-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Campaert, K. , Nocentini, A. , & Menesini, E. (2017). The efficacy of teachers' responses to incidents of bullying and victimization: The mediational role of moral disengagement for bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 43(5), 483–492. 10.1002/ab.21706 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Colpin, H. , Bauman, S. , & Menesini, E. (2021). Teachers' responses to bullying: Unravelling their consequences and antecedents. Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 781–797. 10.1080/17405629.2021.1954903 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Crothers, L. M. , & Kolbert, J. B. (2004). Comparing middle school teachers' and students' views on bullying and anti‐bullying interventions. Journal of School Violence, 3(1), 17–32. 10.1300/J202v03n01_03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. De Luca, L. , Nocentini, A. , & Menesini, E. (2019). The teacher's role in preventing bullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1830. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Devleeschouwer, C. , Tolmatcheff, C. , & Galand, B. (2025). Classmates and teachers matter: Effects of class norms and teachers' responses on bullying behaviors. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. 10.1007/s42380-025-00288-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Elledge, L. C. , Elledge, A. R. , Newgent, R. A. , & Cavell, T. A. (2016). School Experiences Questionnaire‐Modified Version (SEQ). APA PsycTests. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fabris, M. A. , Roorda, D. , & Longobardi, C. (2022). Editorial: Student‐teacher relationship quality research: Past, present and future. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1049115. 10.3389/feduc.2022.1049115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fekkes, M. , Pijpers, F. I. , & Verloove‐Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when, and where? Involvement of children, teachers, and parents in bullying behaviour. Health Education Research, 20(1), 81–91. 10.1093/her/cyg100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fischer, S. M. , John, N. , & Bilz, L. (2021). Teachers' self‐efficacy in preventing and intervening in school bullying: A systematic review. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 896–911. 10.1080/17405629.2020.1869538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Garandeau, C. F. , Poskiparta, E. , & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Tackling acute cases of school bullying in the KiVa anti‐bullying program: A comparison of two approaches. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 981–991. 10.1007/s10802-014-9861-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. García‐Moya, I. (2020). The importance of connectedness in student‐teacher relationships: Insights from the teacher connectedness project. Springer Nature. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grazia, V. , & Molinari, L. (2020). School climate research: Italian adaptation and validation of a multidimensional school climate questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(3), 286–300. 10.1177/0734282920967141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Johander, E. , Turunen, T. , Garandeau, C. F. , & Salmivalli, C. (2024). Interventions that failed: Factors associated with the continuation of bullying after a targeted intervention. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 6(4), 1–13. 10.1007/s42380-023-00169-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kennedy, R. S. (2021). Bully‐victims: An analysis of subtypes and risk characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11‐12), 5401–5421. 10.1177/0886260517741213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kärnä, A. , Voeten, M. , Little, T. , 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. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Longobardi, C. , Badenes‐Ribera, L. , Fabris, M. A. , Martinez, A. , & McMahon, S. D. (2019). Prevalence of student violence against teachers: A meta‐analysis. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 596–610. 10.1037/vio0000202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Longobardi, C. , Iotti, N. O. , Jungert, T. , & Settanni, M. (2018). Student‐teacher relationships and bullying: The role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 1–10. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Marengo, D. , Jungert, T. , Iotti, N. O. , Settanni, M. , Thornberg, R. , & Longobardi, C. (2018). Conflictual student–teacher relationship, emotional and behavioral problems, prosocial behavior, and their associations with bullies, victims, and bullies/victims. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1201–1217. 10.1080/01443410.2018.1481199 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Menesini, E. , & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(Suppl 1), 240–253. 10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Moore, S. E. , Norman, R. E. , Shuichi, S. , Thomas, H. J. , Sly, P. D. , & Scott, J. G. (2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 60–76. 10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Muthén, L. K. , & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User's Guide (version 8). Authors. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mullan, V. , Golm, D. , Juhl, J. , Sajid, S. , & Brandt, V. (2023). The relationship between peer victimisation, self‐esteem, and internalizing symptoms in adolescents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS One, 18(3), e0282224. 10.1371/journal.pone.0282224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Nappa, M. R. , Palladino, B. E. , Nocentini, A. , & Menesini, E. (2021). Do the face‐to‐face actions of adults have an online impact? The effects of parent and teacher responses on cyberbullying among students. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 798–813. 10.1080/17405629.2020.1860746 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nixon, C. L. , Jairam, D. , Davis, S. , Linkie, C. A. , Chatters, S. , & Hodge, J. J. (2020). Effects of students' grade level, gender, and form of bullying victimization on coping strategy effectiveness. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2, 190–204. 10.1007/s42380-019-00027-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Nylund, K. L. , Asparouhov, T. , & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. 10.1080/10705510701575396 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ortega‐Ruiz, R. , Del Rey, R. , & Casas, J. A. (2016). Evaluar el bullying y el cyberbullying validación española del EBIP‐Q y del ECIP‐Q. Psicología educativa, 22(1), 71–79. 10.1016/j.pse.2016.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  35. Özdemir, S. B. , Giles, C. , & Özdemir, M. (2021). Why do immigrant and Swedish adolescents engage in ethnic victimization? Common and distinct underlying factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(11), 2236–2248. 10.1007/s10964-021-01485-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rigby, K. (1998). Manual for the peer relations questionnaire (PRQ). Professional Reading Guide. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rigby, K. (2020). How teachers deal with cases of bullying at school: What victims say. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2338. 10.3390/ijerph17072338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rigby, K. , & Barnes, A. (2002). To tell or not to tell: The victimized student's dilemma. Youth Studies Australia, 21(1), 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rigby, K. , & Johnson, K. (2016). The prevalence and effectiveness of anti‐bullying strategies employed in Australian schools. School of Education, University of South Australia. [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, P. K. , & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 7(2), 193–212. 10.1177/0907568200007002005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Spurk, D. , Hirschi, A. , Wang, M. , Valero, D. , & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103445. 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sung, Y.‐H. , Chen, L.‐M. , Yen, C.‐F. , & Valcke, M. (2018). Double trouble: The developmental process of school bully‐victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 279–288. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. ten Bokkel, I. M. , Roorda, D. L. , Maes, M. , Verschueren, K. , & Colpin, H. (2023). The role of affective teacher–student relationships in bullying and peer victimization: A multilevel meta‐analysis. School Psychology Review, 52(2), 110–129. 10.1080/2372966X.2022.2029218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. ten Bokkel, I. M. , Stoltz, S. E. M. J. , van den Berg, Y. H. M. , de Castro, B. O. , & Colpin, H. (2021). Speak up or stay silent: Can teacher responses towards bullying predict victimized students' disclosure of victimization? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 831–847. 10.1080/17405629.2020.1863211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thornberg, R. , Wänström, L. , & Sjögren, B. (2024). A multilevel study of peer victimization and its associations with teacher support and well‐functioning class climate. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 69–88. 10.1007/s11218-023-09828-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Thornberg, R. , Wegmann, B. , Wänström, L. , Bjereld, Y. , & Hong, J. S. (2022). Associations between student–teacher relationship quality, class climate, and bullying roles: A Bayesian multilevel multinomial logit analysis. Victims & Offenders, 17(8), 1196–1223. 10.1080/15564886.2022.2051107 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Van der Zander, P. , Denessen, E. , & Scholte, R. (2015). The effects of general interpersonal and bullying‐specific teacher behaviors on pupils' bullying behaviors at school. School Psychology International, 36(5), 467–481. 10.1177/0143034315592754 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. van Gils, F. , Colpin, H. , Verschueren, K. , Demol, K. , ten Bokkel, I. , Menesini, E. , & Palladino, B. (2022). Teachers' responses to bullying questionnaire: A validation study in two educational contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 830850. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830850 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. van Gils, F. E. , Demol, K. , Verschueren, K. , ten Bokkel, I. M. , & Colpin, H. (2024). Teachers' responses to bullying: A person‐centered approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 148, 104660. 10.1016/j.tate.2024.104660 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Veenstra, R. , Lindenberg, S. , Huitsing, G. , Sainio, M. , & Salmivalli, C. (2014). The role of teachers in bullying: The relation between anti‐bullying attitudes, efficacy, and efforts to reduce bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1135–1143. 10.1037/a0036110 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wachs, S. , Bilz, L. , Niproschke, S. , & Schubarth, W. (2019). Bullying intervention in schools: A multilevel analysis of teachers' success in handling bullying from the students' perspective. Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(5), 642–668. 10.1177/0272431618780423 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. World Health Organization . (2020). Global status report on preventing violence against children 2020 . https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/332394/9789240004191‐eng.pdf
  53. Yang, A. , Li, X. , & Salmivalli, C. (2016). Maladjustment of bully‐victims: Validation with three identification methods. Educational Psychology, 36(8), 1390–1407. 10.1080/01443410.2015.1015492 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yoon, J. , & Bauman, S. (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of bullying prevention and intervention. Theory Into Practice, 53, 308–314. 10.1080/00405841.2014.947226 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Yoon, J. , & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers' attitudes and intervention strategies. Sage Journals, 69(1), 27–35. 10.7227/RIE.69.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from The British Journal of Educational Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES