Associations Between Antibullying Policies and Bullying in 25 States | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Juvonen  J, Graham  S.  Bullying in schools: the power of bullies and the plight of victims.  Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:159-185.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Olweus  D.  Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere; 1978.
3.
Kann  L, Kinchen  S, Shanklin  SL,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63(suppl 4):1-168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Arseneault  L, Bowes  L, Shakoor  S.  Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘much ado about nothing’?  Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717-729.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Stuart-Cassel  V, Bell  A, Springer  F.  Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies. Washington, DC: US Dept of Education; 2011.
6.
Limber  SP, Small  MA.  State laws and policies to address bullying in schools.  School Psych Rev. 2003;32(3):445-455.Google Scholar
7.
Cornell  D, Limber  SP.  Law and policy on the concept of bullying at school.  Am Psychol. 2015;70(4):333-343.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Bowllan  NM.  Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school-wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school.  J Sch Health. 2011;81(4):167-173.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Srabstein  JC, Berkman  BE, Pyntikova  E.  Antibullying legislation: a public health perspective.  J Adolesc Health. 2008;42(1):11-20.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Furlong  MJ, Morrison  GM, Greif  JL.  Reaching an American consensus: reactions to the special issue on school bullying  . School Psychol Rev. 2003;32(3):456-470.Google Scholar
11.
Cross  D, Epstein  M, Hearn  L, Slee  P, Shaw  T, Monks  H.  National Safe Schools Framework: policy and practice to reduce bullying in Australian schools.  Int J Behav Dev. 2011;35(5):398-404.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Hatzenbuehler  ML, Keyes  KM.  Inclusive anti-bullying policies and reduced risk of suicide attempts in lesbian and gay youth.  J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(1)(suppl):S21-S26.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS).http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm. Updated May 15, 2015. Accessed July 3, 2015.
14.
Greenland  S, Pearl  J, Robins  JM.  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research.  Epidemiology. 1999;10(1):37-48.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Glymour  MM, Greenland  S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman  KJ, Greenland  S, Lash  TL, eds.  Modern Epidemiology.3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008:183-209.
16.
Harrington  JR, Gelfand  MJ.  Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(22):7990-7995.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Uniform crime reporting statistics: reported crime by locality (city, county), state, and nation.http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm. Updated March 29, 2010. Accessed July 3, 2015.
18.
Eaton  DK, Kann  L, Kinchen  S,  et al; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2011.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2012;61(4):1-162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Fairchild  AJ, MacKinnon  DP.  A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects.  Prev Sci. 2009;10(2):87-99.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Simon  P, Olson  S.  Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2014.
21.
Dresler-Hawke  E, Whitehead  D.  The behavioral ecological model as a framework for school-based anti-bullying health promotion interventions.  J Sch Nurs. 2009;25(3):195-204.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Berkowitz  L, Walker  N.  Laws and moral judgments.  Sociometry. 1967;30(4):410-422. doi:10.2307/2786186.Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Suchman  MC.  On beyond interest: Rational, normative and cognitive perspectives in the social scientific study of law.  Wis L Rev. 1997;3:475-501.Google Scholar
24.
Puhl  RM, Latner  JD.  Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation’s children.  Psychol Bull. 2007;133(4):557-580.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Rose  CA, Monda-Amaya  LE, Espelage  DL.  Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: a review of the literature.  Remedial Spec Educ. 2011;32(2):114-130. doi:10.1177/0741932510361247.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Berlan  ED, Corliss  HL, Field  AE, Goodman  E, Austin  SB.  Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the growing up today study.  J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(4):366-371.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Burris  S, Wagenaar  AC, Swanson  J, Ibrahim  JK, Wood  J, Mello  MM.  Making the case for laws that improve health: a framework for public health law research.  Milbank Q. 2010;88(2):169-210.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Finkelhor  D, Turner  H, Ormrod  R, Hamby  SL.  Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth.  Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1411-1423.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Schwartz  S.  The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: the potential misuse of a concept and the consequences.  Am J Public Health. 1994;84(5):819-824.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Brank  EM, Hoetger  LA, Hazen  KP.  Bullying.  Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2012;8:213-230. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173820.Google ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
October 5, 2015

Associations Between Antibullying Policies and Bullying in 25 States

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
  • 2Department of Community and Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • 3Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research Center, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City
  • 4Division of Analysis, Research, and Practice Integration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(10):e152411. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2411
Abstract

Importance  Bullying is the most widespread form of peer aggression in schools. In an effort to address school bullying, 49 states have passed antibullying statutes. Despite the ubiquity of these policies, there has been limited empirical examination of their effectiveness in reducing students’ risk of being bullied.

Objective  To evaluate the effectiveness of antibullying legislation in reducing students’ risk of being bullied and cyberbullied, using data from 25 states in the United States.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using a population-based survey of 63 635 adolescents in grades 9 to 12 from 25 states participating in the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System study (September 2010-December 2011). Data on antibullying legislation were obtained from the US Department of Education (DOE), which commissioned a systematic review of state laws in 2011. The report identified 16 key components that were divided into the following 4 broad categories: purpose and definition of the law, district policy development and review, school district policy components (eg, responsibilities for reporting bullying incidents), and additional components (eg, how policies are communicated). Policy variables from 25 states were linked to individual-level data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System on experiencing bullying and cyberbullying. Analyses were conducted between March 1, 2014, and December 1, 2014.

Exposure  State antibullying legislation.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Exposure to bullying and cyberbullying in the past 12 months.

Results  There was substantial variation in the rates of bullying and cyberbullying across states. After controlling for relevant state-level confounders, students in states with at least 1 DOE legislative component in the antibullying law had a 24% (95% CI, 15%-32%) reduced odds of reporting bullying and 20% (95% CI, 9%-29%) reduced odds of reporting cyberbullying compared with students in states whose laws had no DOE legislative components. Three individual components of antibullying legislation were consistently associated with decreased odds of exposure to both bullying and cyberbullying: statement of scope, description of prohibited behaviors, and requirements for school districts to develop and implement local policies.

Conclusions and Relevance  Antibullying policies may represent effective intervention strategies for reducing students’ risk of being bullied and cyberbullied in schools.

×