Bullying Conceptualization in Context: Research and Practical Implications

In the bullying literature, there often appears to be a tension between the theoretical conceptualization of bullying by researchers and the practical limitations around measuring bullying among youths in survey research. In contrast to Chang (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000516838), we believe that there is a strong agreement among researchers about how to conceptualize bullying. Researchers almost universally conceptualize bullying as a subset of peer-targeted aggression (behavior intended to cause harm) characterized by repetition or chronicity and a power imbalance between the perpetrating youth and the victimized youth (e.g., Farrington, 1993; Felix et al., 2011; Gladden et al., 2014; Leff & Waasdorp, 2013; Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014). Rather, the inconsistency is around how to measure bullying among youths. The question, then, is around construct validity – the extent to which our measures of bullying are actually measuring bullying, and not more general aggression or victimization, or something else entirely. In this review, we discuss possible causes of variations in prevalence rates besides differences in bullying measurement as well as problems with using the word “bullying” and defining bullying in survey research. We also discuss the added empirical value in the ability to assess bullying separately from more general aggression and practical reasons that some researchers use simplified measurement. We close with a caution against so narrowly defining constructs that it limits researchers’ abilities to understand and promote the safety and well-being of youths.