The definition of violence is complex, general and even vague, including many forms, both visible and hidden. Within school settings, violence can be physical, psychological and institutional (structural) toward and between students on the grounds of skin color, race, national or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs when prejudice and unequal treatment are present. Violence results from different causes and needs to be addressed with different intervention programs and practices. In addition, in some cases, it is ignored that there is no dealing with it because some forms or incidents are considered less serious.
School violence has become a fairly popular topic over the last few decades, and a great deal of public opinion concerning school violence is affected by increased media attention regarding incidents that occur in school settings. The phenomenon of violence and cyberbullying has been at the center of research interest in recent years, and most related studies have focused on exploring this phenomenon at the individual level, although structural causes of violence are of equal importance. In the school setting, poverty, prejudice and discrimination, as well as a lack of social support, appeared to represent the most responsible factors for violence expressed by students; consequently, the implementation of intervention programs aimed at these factors to prevent or address this phenomenon (Alexopoulos & Kokkinos, 2018; Deliyanni-Kouimtzi et al., 2007; Kokkinos & Karagianni, 2017; Nikolaou & Samsari, 2016; Sygkollitou et al., 2010).
Quite often, students are the recipients of various incidents of violence that lead to confusion about the causes that provoked them and about the ways to cope with them within the school setting. The prevalence of traditional school bullying and cyberbullying, as well as other forms of victimization of adolescents through cyber-grooming and cyber-hate speech, has rapidly increased in recent years. The data showed that a significant percentage of teenagers participated in different incidents of violence, playing various roles inside the school, outside the school and in cyberspace. Research findings indicate that the location, level of anonymity and heightened level of repetition make cyberbullying more dangerous and difficult to detect than traditional bullying (Slonje et al., 2013). Additionally, some years ago, cyberbullying became a more dominant form of bullying (Hopkins, et al., 2013).
Traditional bullying and cyberbullying in Greek school settings
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in bullying among researchers in Greece (Boulton et al., 2001; Deliyanni-Kouimtzi et al., 2007; Kalliotis, 2000; Pateraki & Houndoumadi, 2001; Sapouna, 2008; Sapouna, 2010), and more recently, research interest has focused on cyberbullying by recognizing the increasing involvement of students in ICT and the dangers in which they potentially place themselves (Kapatzia & Sygkollitou, 2012; Kokkinos & Antoniadou, 2019; Kokkinos & Karagianni, 2017; Kokkinos et al., 2013; Nikolopoulos, 2009; Sidiropoulou & Ntavou, 2018; Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2012).
A review of the literature showed that bullying incidents have occurred quite often in Greek school settings during recent decades (Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2015; Sygkollitou et al., 2010). According to a large-scale research study of school bullying conducted in Greece (Deliyanni-Kouimtzi et al., 2007), in which 2,027 elementary school pupils and 1,830 secondary school pupils, along with 130 preschoolers, participated, the results showed that 8–14% of elementary school pupils and 10–13% of secondary school pupils identified themselves as victims, while 3–4% of elementary school pupils and 1 out of 10 secondary school pupils identified themselves as bullies. Both victims and bullies appeared to be mostly boys, and the most prevalent form of bullying was verbal bullying (mockery and sexual harassment). Most bullying incidents occurred on playgrounds and lasted for many years for at least 10% of the cases. Moreover, at the preschool level, peer victimization seemed to be greater than that experienced by elementary and secondary school pupils: 11–59.7% of the participants reported that they had been victims, and 2.2–16.3% identified themselves as bullies. Most boys appeared to be victims and bullies, and the most prevalent form of bullying was social exclusion, while the most prevalent form of victimization was physical bullying.
The ethnic, religious and cultural diversity of students can create disparities that favor student involvement in violent incidents. Students attending schools with greater ethnic-cultural diversity participate to a greater degree in violent incidents, and it seems that students in minority ethnic groups become victims to a greater degree. The results of a Greek study that investigated the relationship between ethnic-cultural background and bullying/victimization among adolescent students showed that students attending schools with greater ethnic-cultural diversity scored higher in terms of bullying and victimization (Alexopoulos & Kokkinos, 2018). More specifically, Orthodox Greek students scored lower in victimization, while Muslim Turkish students, which are a minority ethnic group, scored higher. Orthodox Greek students were more likely to be bullies, Muslim Turkish students were both bullies and victims, and students with Muslim Pomak, Romany and undefined ethnic-cultural backgrounds were more likely to be victims. Finally, regarding the forms of bullying/victimization, all students scored higher in verbal and indirect/social bullying, while boys scored higher in physical bullying as well.
Data from another Greek study concerning 719 native and 120 nonnative students attending primary and secondary schools in Greece revealed that verbal bullying was the most dominant bullying behavior among students but, most importantly, revealed that positive interpersonal relationships between Greek and non-Greek students were associated with a low frequency of bullying (Nikolaou & Samsari, 2016). The results highlighted that school institutions should support students of different ethnic origins and support activities that actively promote not only inclusion but also interaction among students with different ethnic or religious backgrounds. Above all, the institution of the school should promote cooperativeness among students at all levels of schooling (Kokkinos & Karagianni, 2017), as research data support that it is negatively associated with various forms/manifestations of traditional bullying and cyberbullying, such as physical, verbal and behavioral (Kokkinos et al., 2013; Kokkinos et al., 2016).
A recent Greek review on traditional bullying and cyberbullying presented the findings of a series of recent studies on bullying in the Greek area (Kokkinos & Karagianni, 2017) by organizing them on the basis of the general model of aggression, which considers that the manifestation of antisocial and bullying behaviors is the result of the interaction of individual and situational factors (e.g., Monks et al., 2009). According to the review, sociodemographic factors (e.g., gender, age), personality factors (e.g., Big Five psychopathic traits), values/perceptions (e.g., moral disengagement), beliefs (e.g., low self-efficacy), psychological states (e.g., depression), skills (e.g., social/internet), and maladaptive behaviors (e.g., specific learning difficulties), as well as specific parent styles/practices and low friendship quality (i.e., situational factors), are proposed as risk factors for traditional bullying and cyber-bullying involvement and experiences. This review indicated the need to study the interactive effect of individual and situational factors on violent behavior and victimization, as well as the intermediate mechanisms that lead to their manifestation. The researchers concluded that future research should focus on the establishment of a wider theoretical framework that would explain the manifestation of the specific phenomena. The need to study the possibility of the interaction of intraindividual, mental and behavioral factors on the emergence of aggressive behaviors is highlighted (relational vulnerability model, Mathieson et al., 2011).
Poly-cybervictimization
Although research on online violence started with cyberbullying, more recently, other forms, such as cyber-grooming and cyberhate speech, which appear to be important causes of cybervictimization of children and adolescents, have been studied more systematically. Over the last two decades, preoccupation with the use of electronic means of communication has become a tool for conveying hate, racist and xenophobic content. Cybervictimization is a phenomenon that children and adolescents have a high chance of facing, as the internet is an integral part of their daily life and can affect their mental health. Indeed, the literature indicates that individuals who experience poly-cybervictimization by cyberbullying, cyber-grooming, and cyberhate speech report increased depressive and psychosomatic symptoms (Sourander et al., 2010; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), increased rates of anxiety (Juvonen & Gross, 2008), lower levels of self-esteem (Didden et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2013), emotional distress, anger and sadness (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004), social difficulties (Tokunaga, 2010), academic problems and truancy (Beran, 2009; Yang et al., 2013), substance use (Pelfrey & Weber, 2013) and sometimes suicidal ideation (Brunstein-Klomek et al., 2010). Clearly, cybervictimization can have a negative impact on a victim's well-being, especially when combined with other sources of stress in the victim's everyday life, such as offline, traditional victimization. Moreover, findings from a Greek study in which 1,183 adolescent students participated in a questionnaire survey and 100 students participated in focus group interviews confirmed that cyberbullying evokes negative feelings that affect their behavior and may lead to retaliation. The results showed that, apart from their roles in cyberbullying incidents, students shared common, strong negative feelings such as anger, anxiety and aggression, and even indifference, although a different constellation of feelings characterized each role (Kapatzia & Sygkollitou, 2012).
The research data on cybervictimization in adolescents come from another Greek study, which was a cross-cultural study conducted in seven other countries (Cyprus, Spain, Germany, Thailand, South Korea, India and the United States) and aimed to investigate the poly-cybervictimization of adolescents by cyberbullying, cybergrooming and cyberhate speech, the factors associated with this phenomenon and the coping strategies adolescents adopted to address it. A total of 670 students (311 boys and 359 girls), 15–18 years old, who attended high schools in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki, completed self-report questionnaires, and the results showed that a significant percentage of adolescents participated in incidents of cyber violence by having different roles and by adopting different coping strategies to address them (Daskalou et al., 2020). Regarding victimization by cyberbullying, 8.5% of the adolescents reported being bullies, and 11.4% reported being victims. According to the questionnaire on cybergrooming, 4.6% of the teenagers stated that they often and/or very often were victims of cybergrooming, 10.4% occasionally, while 85% reported that they never or very rarely had such experience. Additionally, regarding victimization via cyberhate speech, 6.1% of teens reported being victims, 42.7% were bystanders, and 4.2% were perpetrators. In particular, for racist cyberhate speech, 3.6% were victims and 34.2% were bystanders, while for religious cyberhate speech, 1.6% were victims and 16.9% were bystanders. Notably, a significant percentage of adolescent Greek students participate in cyberhate speech incidents, as the literature indicates that witnessing cyberhates can be the first step for further active involvement (Blaya, 2018; Blaya & Audrin, 2019; Holfeld & Mishna, 2018; Miller & Morris, 2016; Wachs & Wright, 2018). In addition to perpetrators and victims, bystanders need support, training and guidance, as they play an important role in publicizing incidents of violence (Cassidy et al., 2013).
Addressing school violence: findings and suggestions
Although cyberbullying mostly occurs outside of school, it is usually related to incidents that begin at school (Cassidy et al., 2009; Cassidy et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2013; Olweus, 2012). It is therefore important to address incidents of traditional bullying and the cyber-victimization of students within the school context. By reviewing the literature, we can identify three key interventions areas—law, technology and education—through the empowerment of students in the form of counter speech.
The key role of the school in dealing with incidents of violence
Many different events occur in schools every day, including incidents of violence, such as a student attacking a school with a knife, racism, hate speech, humiliations and other violent phenomena, which, especially when the violence is not visible, are covered by the relative silence or inaction of schools so as not to stigmatize the perpetrator or the victim or reduce the prestige of a school.
Although school violence in Greece has not reached the major dimensions and characteristics presented in other countries (e.g., shootings, carrying weapons, group terrorism), the measurements presented in Greek surveys may not always reflect the real situation, as school authorities may avoid publicizing these incidents either in order not to discredit and expose the prestige of their school or in order not to stigmatize specific students and teachers as perpetrators or victims (Artinopoulou, 2001; Politi & Skordialos, 2020; Sokou, 2003). Thus, incidents of violence may be underestimated or implicitly evaluated as individualized idiosyncratic behaviors. In some cases, they might be overlooked in order for mass media exposure to be avoided, and this treatment indirectly favors their occurrence, as long as they are not reported to be addressed appropriately. In such cases, silence locks violence in the memory of students who have experienced it, with unknown consequences for their development (Sokou, 2003). In Greece, as teachers do not want the school they work in and therefore themselves to be stigmatized, there are doubts about the validity of surveys regarding the existence and frequency of incidents of violence.
Nevertheless, there is the question of whether incidents of school violence that are not visible are taken as seriously as incidents of physical violence and aggression. It is essential for students to know what behaviors constitute incidents of violence and to feel safe to report them. School principals and teachers play a key role in informing students about different types of violence, in guiding students how to report and in supporting them when they receive reports. Even when teachers consider the issue of school bullying to be very serious, they might not take all types of bullying seriously, such as verbal, relational and online types, and tend to ignore and not consider that it is a problem they are called upon to address (Hazler et al., 2001; Holt & Keyes, 2004). Research has shown that teachers' attitudes varied by bullying type and gender. For this reason, they are more likely to intervene in incidents that fit what they consider school bullying because they are unable to recognize some behaviors such as school bullying, or they believe that they are beyond their role.
Furthermore, other research has shown that teachers are optimistic about tackling school bullying and believe that they themselves play a very important role in it, but it seems that they tend to overestimate the effectiveness of their interventions because there is a great gap between their views and the views of their students about how they perceive and deal with school bullying (Holt & Keyes, 2004). While they themselves seem to be optimistic about addressing school bullying, their students may believe that teachers have no idea about this phenomenon. An earlier survey in the U.S. showed that 80% of secondary school students believed that their teachers knew nothing about school bullying (Swearer & Cary, 2003).
The above data, derived from Greek studies and from other studies, support that there is a great possibility for violent incidents not to be referred to be treated appropriately. The incidents of violence need to be addressed by implementing a well-designed institutional policy in schools that favors treatment and does not incriminate the reporting of violent incidents. The need for continuous awareness and training of teachers to recognize and deal with violence in schools needs to be a requirement of all programs implemented.
School climate
The idea of whole-school policies that address the wider school culture and are proactive, not merely reactive, has been given much consideration among scholars and practitioners addressing both traditional bullying and cyberbullying (Cowie & Jennifer, 2008; Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Richard et al., 2012). According to Greek research and other important studies, school climate is significantly related to students’ well-being, learning, and behavior (Andreou et al., 2020; Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2015; Hinduja & Patchin, 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Schools that are based on a holistic approach and offer students unconditional positive regard, modeling, dialog, and practice in ethical caring have much to teach us about addressing problem behaviors in school (Noddings, 2005).
Sometimes for school policies, “no news is good news”, but a culture of silence is not conducive to eliciting calls for help from students or to engaging students and staff in working toward positive solutions. Students are more inclined to report to adults in schools with a strong or positive climate (Hinduja & Patchin, 2012).
A review of evaluative and prevention programs revealed that a positive school climate prevents traditional bullying (Wang et al., 2013). Positive relationships between students and teachers, as well as a negative attitude toward inappropriate behavior such as bullying, are found to be key elements of a positive school climate. Therefore, school staff should promote appropriate attitudes and behaviors, such as caring and empathy, as well as appropriate teacher‒student interactions.
To adopt antibullying attitudes, in addition to promoting knowledge and awareness of the issue, teachers should also take the reporting of any form of bullying incident very seriously and intervene consistently, according to school rules, and not ignore bullying behavior. For instance, data support that relational or psychological abuse is considered less serious by school staff (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). As a result, there is a great possibility that less serious abusive behaviors are hidden and not included in school prevention and intervention programs. Moreover, there is a growing risk of gradually legitimizing informally less serious abusive behaviors that may lead to the emergence of more serious violent behaviors (Giotopoulou-Maragkopoulou, 2010). Therefore, the behavior of the adults themselves, who must refrain from bullying behaviors of students at school, is of vital importance for the establishment of a healthy school climate. At the same time, teachers should integrate interventions to improve school climate into the formal school curriculum and use teaching moments to openly discuss issues related to bullying.
Greek data also support that a negative school climate is a strong predictor of student involvement in bullying/victimization (Andreou et al., 2020). Good interpersonal relations between students, informing teachers of bullying incidents and their direct intervention, strict adherence to school rules and, more generally, a climate of respect, equality and communication within the school unit are likely to contribute to the limitation of the phenomenon of bullying (Antoniadou & Kokkinos, 2015).
Finally, bullying is not only a behavioral problem but also a mental health problem. Research has shown that students who are involved in bullying experience more mental health difficulties and experience greater cognitive distortions. In the last HBSC international report (Cosma et al., 2023), in which a Greek report is included, factors such as schoolwork pressure, body image, problematic social media use and bullying victimization were identified as the most important predictors of mental health problems among students. Therefore, educators should also seek help from mental health professionals for students who engage in acts of bullying and who experience mental health problems.
Addressing school violence through proper coping strategies
An important factor that plays a decisive role in the involvement of adolescents in cybervictimization is coping adopted by students, as research shows that some strategies are more effective, mitigating the negative effects of victimization and preventing future involvement (Dell'Osso et al., 2020; Hyland et al., 2016; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Machmutow et al., 2012).
Regarding coping with cybergrooming victimization, the findings of our research, in which there was a hypothetical scenario of cybergrooming, showed that adolescents mostly reported the strategies of technical support (89%), close support (69.6%) and assertive behavior (52.5%), while a smaller percentage of them reported the strategies of helplessness (12.6%) and distal advice (18%) (Daskalou et al., 2020). With respect to coping with cyberhate speech victimization, adolescents mostly adopted the strategies of technical support (86%), close support (70.8%) and assertive behavior (62.3%). A smaller percentage reported the adoption of revenge (17%), distal advice (16.6%) and helplessness (11.3%).
Moreover, the results of a cross-cultural study of 6,829 adolescents aged 12–18 years from Asia, Europe, and North America, in which the above Greek data were a part, confirmed that the adoption of specific coping strategies to deal with cyberhates is related to the likelihood of being involved (Wachs et al., 2022). The findings revealed that adolescents who preferred distant advice or technical coping strategies were less likely to become victims, perpetrators, or victim-perpetrators. On the other hand, those who felt helpless or resorted to retaliation in response to cyberhate were more likely to be involved in cyberhate, whether as victims, perpetrators, or victim-perpetrators. Additionally, adolescents who relied on close support as a coping strategy were less likely to become victim-perpetrators, while those who used assertive coping were more likely to be victims.
The results highlighted the importance of developing more tailored prevention approaches than existing approaches. According to the results of that study, it is not enough to urge students to be assertive because when the coping strategy of assertiveness is used inappropriately, it is ineffective and has the opposite results, as it puts adolescents at risk of being victimized (Navarro et al., 2018; Wright & Wachs, 2020). To encourage adolescents to take action through professionals or via technical means, practicing coping skills seems to be more important for building or improving their skills. At least, it is very important for adolescents and even younger children to be educated to use technical coping and distal advice to protect themselves. The prevalence of bullying in primary schools points to the need for prevention and intervention programs to start early (Tangen & Campbell, 2010), as increasingly younger children, even preschoolers, are becoming conversant with technology (Cassidy et al., 2013). Additionally, it is obvious that the focus should be given to adolescents who feel helpless or inclined to retaliate, so school institutions should support and educate these students via specific programs for proper skills and coping strategies.
Through a review of the literature, it appears that most intervention programs refer to individualized and differentiated interventions in terms of the role adopted by the students as perpetrators, bystanders or victims. A review of 36 studies on coping strategies by Perren and his colleagues (Perren et al., 2012), providing indicators of effective coping strategies, revealed that psychological service providers, teachers, and school administrators should consider the distinctions of different roles to address bullying and cyberbullying with their students (Cassidy et al., 2013). Many coping strategies focus on victims, and it is necessary to take a wider view and adopt strategies at the school level and even beyond. By reviewing the literature on cyberhate speech, it is worth noting that no specific intervention has been implemented for aggressors of cyberhate speech, and most related projects have focused on preventing or supporting victims through appropriate reactions (Blaya, 2018).
Αpplying RAT theory
In a student’s environment, there are many examples of a hostile stance toward people who are different. Students may face bullying within their environment or be aware of incidents of bullying, violence and disruptive behavior related to the specific characteristics of other people with different features. The key question for every school system is whether teachers, when confronted with daily incidents of school violence, merely deal with them as undesirable consequences and immediately seek to eliminate them, or whether they address the occurrence of violence by trying to understand its underlying reasons and by taking action to eliminate the root causes.. The institution of school should include connections with students’ parents, and the concept of extended school should be implemented beyond the core function of classroom education.
Research has shown that cyber-grooming among adolescents is most prevalent during adolescence and that girls are more prone to cyber-victimization than adolescent boys are (Berson, 2003; Wachs et al., 2012; Whittle et al., 2013). A cross-cultural study examined the factors that facilitate cyber-grooming, applying routine activity theory (RAT) to explore whether certain conditions predict cyber-grooming victimization among adolescents. The study focused on three key factors: exposure to motivated offenders (such as PC/laptop ownership and having internet access in one's bedroom), capable guardianship (parental mediation strategies regarding internet use), and target suitability (the extent to which adolescents disclose private information online) (Wachs et al., 2021). The research drew on data from a survey of 5,938 adolescents aged 12 to 18 from Germany, India, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, and the United States. The findings revealed that owning a PC/laptop, having internet access in one's bedroom, parental mediation, and online disclosure were all directly linked to cyber-grooming victimization. Specifically, while instructive parental mediation was negatively associated with both online disclosure and cyber-grooming, restrictive mediation showed a positive correlation with both. Additionally, online disclosure partially mediated the relationship between parental mediation and cyber-grooming victimization. These results support the application of RAT in understanding cyber-grooming victimization and underscore the importance of prevention programs that teach age-appropriate use of information and communication technologies.. Additionally, the RAT is supported by research data from teens in Colombia as part of the explanation for four types of cyber victimization (visual cyber victimization, online exclusion, ID theft, and written/spoken cyber victimization) (Morillo-Puente & Rios Hernandez, 2022) and aligns with other studies addressing the dimensions of routine activity theory as good predictors of cyber victimization in teenage school students (Kalia & Aleem, 2017; Vakhitova et al., 2015).
The above theoretical framework implies that school authorities and professionals must work jointly to develop initiatives to prevent school students from exposing themselves to cybervictimization. It also highlighted the perspective of parents, their techniques and the contact they have with their children. The restrictive approach of adolescents lowers the voice of their parents and gradually limits their close relationships with their children. In addition, an instructive approach facilitates their relationship with their children to keep in touch and inform them how to avoid disclosing private information and to protect themselves. The above findings highlighted the necessity for an institution of school that includes close contact with each child's family. Appropriate adult supervision in schools and within families of students should also be applied to electronic media use both at schools and at home, as it contributes to reducing cyberbullying and other forms of cybervictimization (Sakellariou et al., 2012).
Conclusions
The school is a sociopolitical institution for the production and reproduction of knowledge, ideas, attitudes and perceptions of the value system, as well as habits, sometimes a place for the exercise of power and social control but also a place for shaping the personal and social identity of students. School bullying and violence are multidimensional, dynamic, social phenomena that concern the whole school as an institution. Institutional violence in schools is a multifactorial issue that cannot be prevented or addressed unilaterally. To address violence in schools, fear-based and punitive programs have been proven to be ineffective and possibly counterproductive (MacKay, 2012; Shariff, 2009). Effective antibullying programs, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, involve the ‘whole school’ in their efforts, including teachers, students and parents; raising awareness of issues; providing training for teachers and parents; incorporating such programs into the curriculum; publicizing antibullying policies; and using disciplinary methods and enhanced instructive supervision within and outside schools (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Rigby & Griffiths, 2011; Wachs et al., 2018).
Given that different forms of violence occur in schools, schools as institutions need to include programs to prevent and address violence resulting from traditional bullying, cyberbullying and other forms of victimization, such as grooming, cyber-grooming, hate-speech and cyberhate-speech. Regarding treatment, the formation of a positive climate in schools in which students can feel safe to report incidents of violence and obtain trust that they will receive the appropriate support, as well as differentiated programs for prevention and intervention of the phenomenon in terms of perpetrators, bystanders, victims and victim-perpetrators, are of great value. Coping strategies are argued to play a key role in students’ involvement and victimization in incidents of violence, with the consequence that educating students on effective strategies aimed at active coping and reporting to others is very important. The research data highlighted that there is still a need to develop more tailored prevention and intervention approaches than existing approaches. On the other hand, developing healthy behaviors and social skills more broadly should also be part of the overall curriculum in schools, with an emphasis on fostering empathy and positive self-esteem for all students (Cassidy et al., 2013; Davis & Nixon, 2012).
After the systematic implementation of antibullying programs (e.g., the DAPHNE project, https://stop-bullying.sch.gr), students in Greece reported that they became more able to talk about incidents of violence to their teachers, parents and classmates and became more able to address the aggression of other children. Teachers also recognized their need for more training and awareness as well as support in implementing prevention programs in their schools. The programs promoted the principles of better communication between students, teachers and parents and respect for the individual rights and needs of students so that teachers, students and parents all contributed to violence-free schools.
Finally, the recognition of hidden institutional structures that support the manifestation and consequently the addressing of violence in school settings is of great importance. In some cases, violence is underestimated and ignored because some invisible forms or incidents are considered less serious or justified as isolated phenomena that are passed over. School authorities may follow a policy of avoiding incidents either to discredit and expose the prestige and good reputation of their school or to avoid stigmatizing specific students and teachers as perpetrators or victims. It seems necessary to establish special mechanisms that favor the discriminatory treatment of victims of violence, such as special methods of obtaining statements from bystanders, investigations, support and advisory services during proceedings. Moreover, students may feel exposed to being urged to report an incident that it would never be treated appropriately. The tolerance of some forms of violence in schools on the grounds of skin color, race, national or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, settles and legitimizes prejudice, unequal treatment and victimization of students can be a generative element for the manifestation of further violence.
In conclusion, the need for a wider theoretical framework that can explain the manifestation of violent phenomena in schools is highlighted by the research data. Additionally, the need to study the effects of experiencing/participating in traditional bullying, cyberbullying and victimization through longitudinal research was indicated, and above all, the structural factors that support the involvement of students in incidents of violence should be considered more systematically.
Data availability statement
No data are associated with this article.
Faculty Opinions recommendedReferences
- Alexopoulos E, Kokkinos KM:
Ethno-cultural background, bullying and victimization among adolescents.
Preschool Primary Educ.
2018; 6(2): 119–143. Publisher Full Text
- Andreou E, Roussi-Vergou C, Didaskalou E, et al.:
School bullying, subjective well-being, and resilience.
Psychol School.
2020; 57(8): 1193–1207. Publisher Full Text
- Antoniadou N, Kokkinos CM:
A review of research on cyber-bullying in Greece.
Int J Adolescence Youth.
2015; 20(2): 185–201. Publisher Full Text
- Artinopoulou V:
School violence. Research and policies in Europe.
Metechmio.
2001.
- Bauman S, Del Rio A:
Preservice teachers' responses to bullying scenarios: comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying.
J Educ Psychol.
2006; 98(1): 219–231. Publisher Full Text
- Beran T:
Correlates of peer victimization and achievement: an exploratory model.
Psychol School.
2009; 46(4): 348–361. Publisher Full Text
- Berson IR:
Grooming cyber-victims: the psychological effects of online exploitation for youth.
J School Violence.
2003; 2: 9–18. Publisher Full Text
- Blaya C:
Cyber hate: a review and content analysis of intervention strategies.
Aggress Violent Behav.
2018; 45(1): 163–172. Publisher Full Text
- Blaya C, Audrin C:
Toward an understanding of the characteristics of secondary school cyberhate perpetrators.
Front Educ.
2019; 4: 46. Publisher Full Text
- Boulton MJ, Karellou I, Laniti I, et al.:
Aggression and victimization among Greek elementary school pupils (in Greek).
Psichologia.
2001; 8(1): 12–29.
- Brunstein-Klomek A, Sourander A, Gould M:
The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: a review of cross sectional andlongitudinal research findings.
Can J psychiatry.
2010; 55(5): 282–288. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Cassidy W, Jackson M, Brown KN:
Sticks and stones can break my bones, however, how can pixels hurt me? students’ experiences with cyber bullying.
School Psychol Int.
2009; 30(4): 383–402. Publisher Full Text
- Cassidy W, Brown K, Jackson M:
‘Under the radar’: educators and cyberbullying in schools.
School Psychol Int.
2012; 33(5): 520–532. Publisher Full Text
- Cassidy W, Faucher C, Jackson M:
Cyberbullying among youth: a comprehensive review of current international research and its implicationsand application to policy and practice.
School Psychol Int.
2013; 34(6): 575–612. Publisher Full Text
- Cosma A, Abdrakhmanova S, Taut D, et al.:
A focus on health behavior in school-aged children international report from the 2021/2022 survey.
Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
2023; 1.
- Cowie H, Jennifer D:
New perspectives on bullying. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2008. Reference Source
- Daskalou V, Maziridou E, Sygkollitou E:
Poly-Cybervictimization in adolescents in Greece: correlates and coping strategies.Paper presented atthe Conference of CA18121 COST Action “Cultures of Victimology:understanding Processes of Victimization across Europe”, January 15–17, Panteion University of Athens, 2020.
- Davis S, Nixon C:
Empowering bystanders. In: J. W. Patchin, & S. Hinduja (Eds.), Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives. Routledge, 2012; 93–109. Reference Source
- Deliyanni-Kouimtzi V, Psalti A, et al.:
Gender identity, ethnic identity, & school violence: the study of violence & victimization in the school context. Final Report. Thessaloniki: Department of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2007.
- Dell’Osso B, Di Bernardo I, Chamberlain S, et al.:
Learning to deal with problematic usage of the internet. EU-PU: European Cooperation in Science and Technology, 2020. Publisher Full Text
- Didden R, Scholte RH, Korzilius H, et al.:
Cyberbullying among students with intellectual and developmental disability in special education settings.
Dev Neurorehabil.
2009; 12(3): 146–151. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Farrington DP, Ttofi MM:
Reducing school bullying: evidence-based implications for policy.
Crime Justice.
2009; 38: 281–345. Publisher Full Text
- Giotopoulou-Maragkopoulou A:
Gang violence and aggression in schools. Law Library, 2010.
- Hazler RJ, Miller DL, Carney JV, et al.:
Adult recognition of school bullying situations.
Educ Res.
2001; 43(2): 133–146. Publisher Full Text
- Hinduja S, Patchin JW:
School climate 2.0: preventing cyberbullying and sexting one classroom at a time. Corwin Press, 2012. Publisher Full Text
- Holfeld B, Mishna F:
Longitudinal associations in youth involvement as victimized, bullying, or witnessing cyberbullying.
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw.
2018; 21(4): 234–239. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Holt MK, Keyes MA:
Teachers' attitudes toward bullying. In: D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: a social ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2004; 121–139. Reference Source
- Hopkins L, Taylor L, Bowen E, et al.:
A qualitative study investigating adolescents’ understanding of aggression, bullying and violence.
Child Youth Serv Rev.
2013; 35(4): 685–693. Publisher Full Text
- Hyland P, Lewis CA, McGuckin C, et al.:
Coping with bullying: strategies used to deal with traditional and cyber bullying in Irish post primary school.Paper presented at the conference.
The Psychological Society of Ireland Annual Conference.
Westmeath, Ireland, 2016. Reference Source
- Juvonen J, Gross EF:
Extending the school grounds?--Bullying experiences in cyberspace.
J Sch Health.
2008; 78(9): 496–505. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Kalia D, Aleem S:
Cyber victimization among adolescents: examining the role of Routine Activity Theory.
J Psychosoc Res.
2017; 12(1): 223–232. Reference Source
- Kalliotis P:
Bullying as a special case of aggression: procedures for cross-cultural assessment.
Sch Psychol Int.
2000; 21(1): 47–64. Publisher Full Text
- Kapatzia A, Sygkollitou E:
Cyberbullying: the new face of school bullying. In: A. Psalti, S. Kasapi & V. Deligianni - Kouimtzi (Eds), Contemporary Psychopedagogical Issues: Bullying in Greek Schools. Research data and suggestions for interventions. Gutenberg, 2012; 197–217.
- Kochenderfer-Ladd B, Skinner K:
Children's coping strategies: moderators of the effects of peer victimization?
Dev Psychol.
2002; 38(2): 267–278. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Kokkinos C, Antoniadou N, Dalara E, et al.:
Cyberbullying, personality and coping among pre-adolescents.
International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning.
2013; 3(4): 55–69. Publisher Full Text
- Kokkinos K, Karagianni K:
Bullying and victimization: review of Greek research evidence.
Preschool and Primary Education.
2017; 5(1): 2–45. Publisher Full Text
- Kokkinos CM, Antoniadou N:
Cyber-bullying and cyber-victimization among undergraduate student teachers through the lens of the general aggression model.
Comput Hum Behav.
2019; 98: 59–68. Publisher Full Text
- Kokkinos CM, Baltzidis E, Xynogala D, et al.:
Prevalence and personality correlates of Facebook bullying among university undergraduates.
Computers in Human Behavior.
2016; 55(Part B): 840–850. Publisher Full Text
- Machmutow K, Perren S, Sticca F, et al.:
Peer victimisation and depressive symptoms: can specific coping strategies buffer the negative impact of cybervictimisation?
Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties.
2012; 17(3–4): 403–420. Publisher Full Text
- MacKay AW:
Respectful and responsible relationships: there’s no app for that. (The Report of the Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying). Government of Nova Scotia, 2012. Reference Source
- Mathieson LC, Murray-Close D, Crick NR, et al.:
Hostile intent attributions and relational aggression: the moderating roles of emotional sensitivity, gender, and victimization.
J Abnorm Child Psychol.
2011; 39(7): 977–987. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Miller B, Morris RG:
Virtual peer effects in social learning theory.
Crime & Delinquency.
2016; 62(12): 1543–1569.
Publisher Full Text
- Monks CP, Smith PK, Naylor P, et al.:
Bullying in different contexts: commonalities, differences and the role of theory.
AGGRESS VIOLENT Behavior.
2009; 14(2): 146–156. Publisher Full Text
- Morillo Puente S, Rios Hernandez IN:
Cyber victimization within the routine activity theory framework in the digital age.
Revista de Psicología.
2022; 40(1): 265–291. Publisher Full Text
- Navarro R, Larrañaga E, Yubero S:
Differences between preadolescent victims and non-victims of cyberbullying in cyber-relationship motives and coping strategies for handling problems with peers.
CURR PSYCHOL.
2018; 37: 116–127. Publisher Full Text
- Nikolaou G, Samsari E:
Attitudes of native and immigrant students toward school bullying in Greece.
Multicultural Education Review.
2016; 8(3): 160–175.
Publisher Full Text
- Nikolopoulos D:
Online harassment: a modern threat. In: S. Alivizos (Ed.),
Pedagogical Dimensions of New Media.
Grigori, 2009; 88–117.
- Noddings N:
The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education. (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press, 2005. Reference Source
- Olweus D:
Cyberbullying: an overrated phenomenon?
Eur J Dev Psychol.
2012; 9(5): 520–538. Publisher Full Text
- Patchin JW, Hinduja S:
Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: a preliminary look at cyberbullying.
Youth Violence Juv Justice.
2006; 4(2): 148–169. Publisher Full Text
- Patchin JW, Hinduja S:
Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: a test of General Strain Theory.
Youth Soc.
2011; 43(2): 727–751. Publisher Full Text
- Pateraki L, Houndoumadi A:
Bullying among primary school children in Athens, Greece.
Educ Psychol.
2001; 21(2): 167–175. Publisher Full Text
- Pelfrey WV, Weber NL:
Keyboard gangsters: analysis of incidence and correlates of cyberbullying in a large urban student population.
Deviant Behav.
2013; 34(1): 68–84. Publisher Full Text
- Perren S, Corcoran L, Cowie H, et al.:
Tackling cyberbullying: review of empirical evidence regarding successful responses by students, parents, and schools.
Int J Conf Violence.
2012; 6(2): 283–292. Publisher Full Text
- Politi S, Skordialos E:
School bullying and its treatment.
Panhellenic Conference of Education Sciences.
2020; 8. : 876–885. Publisher Full Text
- Richard JF, Schneider BH, Mallet P:
Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: really looking at the whole school.
Sch Psychol Int.
2012; 33: 263–284. Publisher Full Text
- Rigby K, Griffiths C:
Addressing cases of bullying through the method of shared concern.
Sch Psychol Int.
2011; 32(3): 345–357. Publisher Full Text
- Sakellariou T, Carroll A, Houghton S:
Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and high school students.
Sch Psychol Int.
2012; 33(5): 533–549. Publisher Full Text
- Sapouna M:
Bullying in Greek primary and secondary schools.
Sch Psychol Int.
2008; 29(2): 199–213. Publisher Full Text
- Sapouna M:
Collective efficacy in the school context: does it help explain victimization and bullying among Greek primary and secondary school students?
J Interpers Violence.
2010; 25(10): 1912–1927. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Shariff S:
Confronting cyber-bullying: what schools need to know to control misconduct and avoid legal consequences. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Reference Source
- Sidiropoulou A, Davou B:
"It rings therefore I exist": issues of emotional development in the digital world.
The Journal of Educational Psychotherapy.
2018; 24: 65–75. Reference Source
- Slonje R, Smith PK, Frisén A:
The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention.
Comput Human Behav.
2013; 29(1): 26–32. Publisher Full Text
- Sokou Κ:
The promotion of mental and social health as a school violence prevention policy.
Scale – Tributes.
2003; 5: 14–17.
- Sourander A, Klomek AB, Ikonen M, et al.:
Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: a population-based study.
Arch Gen Psychiatry.
2010; 67(7): 720–728. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Swearer SM, Cary PT:
Perceptions and attitudes toward bullying in middle school youth: a developmental examination across the bully/victim continuum.
J Appl Sch Psychol.
2003; 19(2): 63–79. Publisher Full Text
- Sygkollitou E, Psalti A, Kapatzia A:
Cyberbullying among Greek adolescents. In: J. A. Mora-Merchan & T. Jȁger (Eds.),
Cyberbullying – A cross-national comparison.
Verlag Empirische Pëdagogik, 2010; 101–113.
- Tangen D, Campbell M:
Cyberbullying prevention: one primary school’s approach.
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling.
2010; 20(2): 225–234. Publisher Full Text
- Tokunaga RS:
Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization.
Comput Hum Behav.
2010; 26(3): 277–287. Publisher Full Text
- Tsorbatzoudis H, Lazuras L, Barkoukis V: Eds.,
Cyberbullying in Greece: an interdisciplinary approach. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, European Program Daphne III, Greece, 2012. Reference Source
- Vakhitova Z, Reynald D, Townsley M:
Toward the adaptation of routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories to account for cyber abuse victimization.
J Contemp Crim Justice.
2015; 32(2): 169–188. Publisher Full Text
- Wachs S, Costello M, Wright MF, et al.:
“DNT LET ’EM H8 U!”: applying the routine activity framework to understand cyberhate victimization among adolescents across eight countries.
Comput Educ.
2021; 160: 104026. Publisher Full Text
- Wachs S, Machimbarrena JM, Wright MF, et al.:
Associations between coping strategies and cyberhate involvement: evidence from adolescents across three world regions.
Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2022; 19(11): 6749. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Wachs S, Whittle HC, Hamilton-Giachritsis C, et al.:
Correlates of mono- and dual-victims of cybergrooming and cyberbullying: evidence from four countries.
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw.
2018; 21(2): 91–98. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Wachs S, Wolf KD, Pan CC:
Cybergrooming: risk factors, coping strategies and associations with cyberbullying.
Psicothema.
2012; 24(4): 628–633. PubMed Abstract
- Wachs S, Wright MF:
Associations between bystanders and perpetrators of online hate: the moderating role of toxic online disinhibition.
Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2018; 15(9): 2030. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Wang C, Berry B, Swearer SM:
The critical role of school climate in effective bullying prevention.
Theor Pract.
2013; 52(4): 296–302. Publisher Full Text
- Whittle HC, Hamilton-Giachritsis C, Beech A, et al.:
A review of young people’s vulnerabilities to online grooming.
Aggress Violent Beh.
2013; 18(1): 62–70. Publisher Full Text
- Wright MF, Wachs S:
Parental support, health, and cyberbullying among adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
J Child Fam Stud.
2020; 29: 2390–2401. Publisher Full Text
- Yang SJ, Stewart R, Kim JM, et al.:
Differences in predictors of traditional and cyber bullying: a 2-year longitudinal study in Korean school children.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry.
2013; 22(5): 309–318. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ:
Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry.
2004; 45(7): 1308–1316. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
