# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Am Ende nimmt er sich das Leben.

Über mehrere Wochen wird der damals 13-jährige Bub aus Velden am Wörthersee von Schulkameraden über das Internet angefeindet, via Facebook für seine Kleidung, sein Aussehen lächerlich gemacht, immer wieder auch als homosexuell denunziert. Beim Opfer wandelt sich die Wut zunehmend in Wehrlosigkeit, Ärger mutiert zu Verzweiflung, die Angst wächst zum beklemmenden Gefühl der Ausweglosigkeit - und führt in eine Tragödie. Selbstmord.

Es ist ein besonders dramatischer, aber klassischer Fall von sogenanntem Cybermobbing - also Mobbing mit einem für alle einsehbaren Tatort in den sozialen Medien. Die „Tatwaffen": beleidigende Postings und schäbige Links.

Als sich der geschilderte Fall vor acht Jahren ereignet, gibt es allerdings noch keine rechtliche Handhabe gegen derartige Attacken. Erst seit 1. Jänner 2016 gilt in Österreich ein entsprechendes Gesetz, das Cybermobbing strafbar macht. Bis zu ein Jahr Gefängnis droht den Tätern, begeht das Opfer Selbstmord, erhöht sich das Strafausmaß auf bis zu drei Jahre.

Cybermobbing ist strafbar

Ihren Sohn können Paragrafen, Anzeigen und Verurteilungen freilich nicht mehr ins Leben zurückholen. Ihre tragische Familiengeschichte vor knapp drei Jahren offen und öffentlich für einen Films zum Thema Cybermobbing der Uni Klagenfurt zu erzählen, sei aber nicht nur eine Art der Trauerarbeit gewesen, Michaela Horn wollte damit auch Aufklärungsarbeit leisten. Sie wolle anderen Eltern ein ähnliches Schicksal ersparen und Jugendliche sensibilisieren. „Ihnen muss bewusst werden, dass der andere am Computer ein Mensch mit echten Gefühlen ist", betonte Horn damals.

Diese warnende Weckruffunktion verbindet die Kärntnerin mit Carrie Golldege aus Südengland. Die Britin sorgt dieser Tage mit einem alarmierenden Facebook-Eintrag für internationale Aufmerksamkeit, in dem sie die Leidensgeschichte ihrer sechsjährigen Tochter erzählt: Das Mädchen litt nach permanenten, sich über eineinhalb Jahre ziehenden Anfeindungen durch eine Schul-„Freundin" unter Schlaflosigkeit, massiven Angst- und Essstörungen und musste am Ende im Krankenhaus behandelt werden. „Sie ist nur eine von vielen. Zu vielen", schreibt die verzweifelte Mutter, die durch Outing darauf aufmerksam machen will, dass Mobbing eine Form der Gewalt ist, die auch körperlich krank machen kann.

Österreich führt in Europa-Statistik

Die Bewusstseinsbildung dafür läuft allerdings nur langsam an - und manchmal in die falsche Richtung. So registriert die Statistik Austria bereits seit 2007 keine Mobbingfälle mehr.
Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn? Nicht ganz. Denn einschlägige Erhebungen auf internationaler und lokaler Ebene (siehe rechts oben) zeichnen ein Bild eines wachsenden Problems in Klassen, auf Pausenhöfen und Schulwegen.
Nirgendwo sonst in Europa sei demnach laut OECD die Mobbingrate unter Schülern höher als in Österreich (beispielsweise sogar fünf Mal so hoch wie in Schweden). Noch dazu steigt der Anteil der jungen Opfer, während in Deutschland, Griechenland oder Italien ein gegenläufiger Trend zu beobachten war. Allein in der Steiermark, so eine AK-Studie aus dem Vorjahr, gaben knapp zwei Drittel der Schüler an, dass Mobbing in ihrer Schule oder ihrer Klasse ein Thema sei. In Vorarlberg kam es im Vorjahr sogar zur ersten Klage eines Schülers gegen seine ehemalige Schule, nachdem er jahrelang gemobbt wurde. Man einigte sich außergerichtlich.

Im Bildungsministerium hat man im vergangenen Jahr mit einem „Leitfaden für die Schulgemeinschaft im Umgang mit Mobbing" reagiert. Die Erfahrung zeige aber, dass es kein einheitliches Vorgehen geben könne, da jeder Fall eine eigene Charakteristik habe, heißt es in der knapp 70-seitigen Broschüre.
Der Psychotherapeut und Mobbingexperte Peter Teuschel hat aber typische „Täterprofile" ausgemacht: Er nennt sie die „Kings" und „Queens" einer Klasse. Sie fallen durch Intelligenz, Charisma und Machtbewusstsein auf und nützen Mobbing als Demonstration ihrer Macht. Die OECD-Studie differenziert zudem bezüglich der sozialen Herkunft. Demnach sind Kinder und Jugendliche aus ärmeren Familien häufiger Opfer. Während die Buben aus niederen sozialen Schichten vor allem körperlich attackiert werden, läuft Mobbing unter Mädchen und bei Schülern aus bessergestellten Familien subtiler über Ausgrenzung, Bloßstellung oder die Verbreitung boshafter Gerüchte oder Lügen.
Die Folgen sind aber dieselben: Was meist mit einem Abfall der Schulleistungen beginnt, führt zu Isolation, Depression, Krankheit - und im schlimmsten Fall in den Tod.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mobbing: Tatort Schule: Österreich ist beim Mobbing unter Schülern Europa-Spitze | Kleine Zeitung

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Am Ende nimmt er sich das Leben. Über mehrere Wochen wird der damals 13-jährige Bub aus Velden am Wörthersee von Schulkameraden über das Internet angefeindet, via Facebook für seine Kleidung, sein Aussehen lächerlich gemacht, immer wieder auch als homosexuell denunziert.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bullying is a major problem worldwide with serious consequences for students' lives. This chapter examines differences between countries and economies in students' exposure to bullying at school, and how bullying is associated with student and school characteristics. It also examines how students' exposure to bullying is related to reading performance, to students' attitudes towards bullying, to students' well-being and to school climate.

Bullying at school can affect any schoolchild in any country (Nansel et al., 2004Phillips, 2007[1]). This violent behaviour can have severe physical and emotional long-term consequences for students, which is why teachers, parents, policy makers and the media are increasingly drawing attention to bullying and trying to find ways to tackle it ([2]).

copy the link link copied!

On average across OECD countries, 23 % of students reported being bullied at least a few times a month.

Boys and low-achieving students in reading were more likely to report being bullied at least a few times a month than girls and high-achieving students.

On average across OECD countries, students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month scored 21 points lower in reading than students who did not report so, after accounting for socio-economic status.

Some 88 % of students across OECD countries agreed that it is a good thing to help students who cannot defend themselves and it is wrong to join in bullying. Girls and students who were not frequently bullied were more likely to report stronger anti-bullying attitudes than boys and frequently bullied students.

Students who reported being frequently exposed to bullying also reported feeling sad, scared and less satisfied with their lives than students who did not report so. Students in schools with a high prevalence of bullying were also more likely to report a weaker sense of belonging at school and a worse disciplinary climate than their counterparts in schools with a low prevalence of bullying.

Bullying is a specific type of aggressive behaviour that involves unwanted, negative actions in which someone intentionally and repeatedly harms and discomforts another person who has difficulty defending himself or herself (Olweus, 1993Woods and Wolke, 2004Woods and Wolke, 2004Hinduja and Patchin, 2010Smith et al., 2008[3]). It is characterised by a systematic abuse of power and an unequal power relationship between the bully and the victim ([4]). Bullying can be physical (hitting, punching and kicking), verbal (name-calling and mocking) and relational (spreading gossip and engaging in other forms of public humiliation, shaming and social exclusion) ([4]). With widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICT), cyberbullying has become another type of harassment amongst students that takes place through digital devices and tools ([5]; [6]).

Since 2015, PISA has asked students about their experiences with bullying-related behaviours at school and measures three distinct types of bullying: physical, relational and verbal. PISA 2018 asked students how often ( "never or almost never", "a few times a year", "a few times a month", "once a week or more") during the 12 months prior to the PISA test they had had the following experiences in school (the question also indicated that "Some experiences can also happen in social media"): "Other students left me out of things on purpose" (relational bullying); "Other students made fun of me" (verbal bullying); "I was threatened by other students" (verbal/physical bullying); "Other students took away or destroyed things that belong to me" (physical bullying); "I got hit or pushed around by other students" (physical bullying); and "Other students spread nasty rumours about me" (relational bullying). These statements were combined into a single indicator, "any type of bullying act", when a student responded at least a few times a month to any of the bullying questions. The indicator "any type of bullying act" is referred to throughout this chapter as "being bullied".

copy the link link copied!

Box III.2.1. How the index of exposure to bullying, frequently bullied students and schools with a high prevalence of bullying were classified in PISA 2018

An index of exposure to bullying was constructed using student responses ( "never or almost never", "a few times a year", "a few times a month", "once a week or more") to three statements about students' experience with bullying: "Other students left me out of things on purpose"; "Other students made fun of me"; and "I was threatened by other students". The index average is 0 and the standard deviation is 1 across OECD countries. Positive values in this index indicate that the student is more exposed to bullying at school than the average student in OECD countries; negative values in this index indicate that the student is less exposed to bullying at school than the average student in OECD countries.

Students were classified as being "frequently bullied" if they were amongst the 10 % of students with the highest values in the index of exposure to bullying across all countries and economies with available data (a value greater than 1.51 in the index of exposure to bullying). This cut-off was selected because most of the students at or above this level were frequently exposed (at least a few times a month) to the three forms of bullying measured by the index (Table III.B1.2.20). Across most PISA-participating countries and economies, more than two in three students who were classified as frequently bullied reported that other students left them out of things on purpose or made fun of them. On average across OECD countries, about three in five frequently bullied students reported that other students threatened them.

PISA 2018 also classified schools based on the concentration of frequently bullied students. PISA 2018 results show that, on average across OECD countries, about 3 % of the variation in the index of exposure to bullying lay between schools, a proportion somewhat smaller than that of other indices examined in this report (Table III.B1.2.1). Schools with a high prevalence of bullying are those where more than 10 % of students were frequently bullied. Schools with a low prevalence of bullying are those where 5 % of students or less were frequently bullied.

Figure III.2.1 shows that bullying occurs in all PISA-participating countries and economies. On average across OECD countries, 23 % of students reported being bullied at least a few times a month; 8 % of students were classified as being frequently bullied. However, PISA 2018 data reveal large between-country differences in students' reported exposure to bullying. In Brunei Darussalam, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Morocco and the Philippines, more than 40 % of students reported being bullied at least a few times a month. In contrast, in Korea, the Netherlands, Portugal and Chinese Taipei, less than 15 % of students reported so. In Brunei Darussalam, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines, more than 20 % of students were frequently bullied, while in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) (hereafter "B-S-J-Z [China]"), Iceland, Japan, the Netherlands and Chinese Taipei fewer than 5 % of students were frequently bullied.

Certain types of bullying at school occur more often than others. While the prevalence of bullying varies substantially, depending on the student's age, the country and the culture he or she lives in, and the type of studies pursued (Chester et al., 2015Craig et al., 2009Thomas et al., 2015Waasdorp and Bradshaw, 2015Wang, Iannotti and Nansel, 2009Williams and Guerra, 2007[7]; [8]), verbal and relational bullying are the most common types of bullying amongst secondary school-age students ([9]; [10]; [11]; [12]). Like PISA 2015, PISA 2018 found that in many countries verbal and relational bullying occurred the most frequently ( Figure III.2.1 and Table III.B1.2.1). On average across OECD countries, 14 % of students reported that others made fun of them at least a few times a month; 10 % reported that they were the object of nasty rumours at school; and 9 % reported that they were left out of things on purpose. More than 10 % of students in 67 out of 75 countries/economies with available data reported that their peers made fun of them at least a few times a month. The same proportion of students in 55 out of 75 countries and economies reported that they were the object of nasty rumours; and in 40 out of 75 countries and economies that their schoolmates frequently left them out of things.

PISA 2018 data show that physical bullying was less prevalent than verbal and relational bullying. On average across OECD countries, around 7 % of students reported that they got hit or pushed around by other students at least a few times a month. Similar proportions of students reported that other students took away or destroyed things that belong to them and that they were threatened by others. However, these percentages mask large differences across countries and economies. One possible explanation might be that different cultural and social norms may affect how students in different countries perceive various types of violence. For example, in Baku (Azerbaijan), the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco and the Philippines, more than 20 % of students reported that their belongings were taken away or destroyed, while in Japan, Korea and the Netherlands, less than 3 % of students so reported.

Are students who are being bullied at least a few times a month concentrated in certain schools? As shown in Figure III.2.2, on average across OECD countries, 15 % of students attended schools where 10 % of their schoolmates or less reported being bullied at school at least a few times a month in the 12 months prior to the PISA test. Some 47 % of students were in schools where between 10 % and 25 % of their schoolmates had been bullied at school at least a few times a month over this period. Some 34 % of students were in schools where between 25 % and 50 % of their schoolmates reported being bullied at least a few times a month. Only 4 % of students attended schools where at least 50 % of their fellow students reported being bullied at least a few times a month.

In all education systems, 15-year-old students' exposure to bullying varied across schools ( Figure III.2.2 and Table III.B1.2.3). However, in some systems, victims of bullying seemed to be concentrated in certain schools, while in other systems these students were distributed more evenly across all schools. For example, in Luxembourg and Slovenia, around 21 % of students reported being bullied at least a few times a month. But these students were more evenly distributed across schools in Luxembourg than in Slovenia. In Luxembourg, 80 % of students attended schools where between 10 % and 25 % of their schoolmates reported being bullied (the second lowest category of the concentration of bullying in schools), while in Slovenia, 49 % of students attended such schools.

Figure III.2.2. Prevalence of exposure to bullying at school

Note: The percentage of students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month is found next to the country/economy name. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students in schools where less than 25 % of students were bullied at least a few times a month.

Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Table III.B1.2.3.

Educators are best placed to institute effective anti-bullying strategies, but only when they are able to recognise bullying can they take the appropriate action. PISA 2018 asked school principals to describe the extent to which learning is hindered by students intimidating or bullying other students. On average across OECD countries, 24 % of students attended schools whose principals reported that learning is "not at all" hindered, 64 % of students were in schools whose principals reported that learning is hindered "very little", and 12 % of students were in schools whose principals reported that learning is hindered to "some extent" or "a lot" by students intimidating or bullying other students (Table III.B1.2.8). But there are significant differences across countries. In Albania, Belarus, Indonesia, the Republic of North Macedonia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, more than 60 % of students were in schools whose principal reported that learning is not at all hindered by students intimidating or bullying other students. In Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the United States, less than 10 % of students attended such schools. In addition, in Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United States, more than 75 % of students were in schools whose principal reported that learning is hindered "very little" by students intimidating or bullying other students. In Belarus, B-S-J-Z (China), Kazakhstan, Qatar, the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia, less than 25 % of students attended such schools.

Bullying is a group activity that takes place in the larger peer and school context (Hong and Espelage, 2012Salmivalli et al., 1996Saarento, Garandeau and Salmivalli, 2015[13]; [14]). Relational and environmental factors that can affect students' social development may have an impact on the prevalence of bullying ([15]). The socio-economic, immigrant and gender composition of the school, to name just three elements, may explain substantial differences amongst schools in the prevalence of bullying.

PISA 2018 results show substantial differences across schools, in countries and economies with available data, in students' exposure to bullying (Table III.B1.2.5). On average across OECD countries and in a majority of education systems, fewer students in socio-economically advantaged schools than in disadvantaged schools were bullied at least a few times a month. The difference in favour of advantaged schools was at least 16 percentage points in Brunei Darussalam, the Dominican Republic, Hungary and Romania. PISA 2018 data show a smaller difference between rural and city schools. Still, in 16 education systems, students who were exposed to bullying at least a few times a month were significantly more likely to be found in rural schools; in only three school systems were students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month more likely to be found in city schools.

When considering the relationship between exposure to bullying and the concentration of immigrant students in a school, previous evidence suggests that bullying is just as prevalent amongst students who attend schools with little or no diversity in their student population as amongst students who attend schools with a highly diverse student body (Tippett, Wolke and Platt, 2013Tolsma et al., 2013Walsh et al., 2016Strohmeier, Kärnä and Salmivalli, 2011Vervoort, Scholte and Overbeek, 2010Vitoroulis, Brittain and Vaillancourt, 2016[16]; [17]; [18]). Other studies, however, find that minority students are at greater risk of victimisation in an ethnically, culturally or linguistically heterogeneous context ([19]; [20]; [21]). PISA 2018 data show that, on average across OECD countries, students were exposed to bullying slightly more frequently when they attended schools with a high concentration of students with an immigrant background than in schools with a low concentration of immigrant students (Table III.B1.2.5). But this difference was observed in only 14 countries and economies; it was relatively large in Bulgaria and Thailand. In addition, a further four education systems showed significant differences in the opposite direction.

Are students at greater risk of being bullied when they are in mixed schools or single-sex schools? Previous research finds no clear evidence between school-level gender composition and self-reported victimisation (Saarento et al., 2013Saarento, Garandeau and Salmivalli, 2015Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004[22]), although some studies suggest that the risk of being a victim of bullying is greater in schools with a larger proportion of boys ([15]; [23]). There are only a limited number of PISA-participating countries and economies with a sufficiently large number of sampled students who attended single-sex schools; but a comparison of gender-balanced schools and those where either boys or girls were the clear majority provides valuable insights (see Box III.3.1 in Chapter 3 for more details about schools' gender composition in PISA 2018).

On average across OECD countries, and in more than half of the other PISA-participating education systems, the share of students being bullied at least a few times a month was larger in schools where more than 60 % of students were boys than in schools where more than 60 % of students were girls (Table III.B1.2.11). In 30 out of 71 countries and economies, the percentage of these students was lower in gender-balanced schools (those schools where boys and girls represented between 40 % and 60 % of students) than in schools where boys were the clear majority.

In addition, PISA 2018 data show that, in 11 out of 16 education systems with available data, the share of students being bullied at least a few times a month was significantly larger in all-boys' schools than in gender-balanced schools; in 15 out of 18 participating countries and economies, the share of students being bullied at least a few times a month was larger in gender-balanced schools than in all-girls schools. Moreover, in 13 out of the 14 countries with enough girls-only and boys-only schools in the sample, the percentage of students frequently exposed to bullying was lower in single-sex girls' schools than in single-sex boys' schools. The results suggest that bullying is the most prevalent in boys-only schools, followed by schools with a clear majority of boys, gender balanced-schools, schools with a clear majority of girls and girls-only schools.

Since PISA 2015 asked similar questions about bullying as PISA 2018 did, education systems can monitor changes in the prevalence of students' exposure to bullying at school.OECD, 2017 1 The responses provided by students in 2018 closely followed the pattern observed in 2015, with an upward trend in the responses to all six questions on bullying during the period ([24]) (Table III.B1.2.2). On average across OECD countries with comparable data, the share of students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month increased by four percentage points between 2015 and 2018. This increase during this period was marked (more than 10 percentage points) in several schools systems, including Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Greece. For example, in 2018, 44 % of students in the Dominican Republic reported being bullied at least a few times a month compared to 30 % of students who so reported three years earlier. By contrast, in Hong Kong (China), Japan and Korea, there was at least a two percentage-point decrease in the share of students who reported being bullied at least a few times a month.

The largest increase in bullying-related behaviours across OECD countries between 2015 and 2018 was in making fun of other students (which increased by three percentage points over the period), while the smallest increase was in leaving a student out of things on purpose (which increased by one percentage point). The largest change (between 8 and 16 percentage points) in the level of exposure to bullying, reflected in students' responses to all six questions, was observed in the Dominican Republic. The upward trend in most countries and economies should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence of an increase in students' exposure to bullying. This result might be partly related to students' greater ability to distinguish bullying from other forms of aggressive behaviour, or to PISA including social media as a potential platform for bullying in the 2018 questionnaire.

Over the past decade, cyberbullying became increasingly common amongst teenagers (Smith et al., 2008Olweus, 2012OECD, 2017Slonje and Smith, 2008Wang, Iannotti and Nansel, 2009[6]). Cyberbullying is defined as bullying via electronic devices and the Internet ([25]). It can take various forms, including sending nasty text messages, chats or comments, spreading rumours via online posts, or excluding someone from online groups ([24]). Potential anonymity, impersonation, perpetrators' relative lack of fear of being caught, lack of supervision and victims' feeling that they can be bullied anywhere, at any time, are amongst some characteristics that differentiate cyberbullying from traditional bullying ([26]; [11]).

While a majority of cyberbullying victims are also victims of traditional forms of bullying (Schneider et al., 20122019[27]), education systems may find it more difficult to tackle cyberbullying. A recent OECD publication, Educating 21st-Century Children: Emotional Well-Being in the Digital Age, concludes that the ubiquity of digital technology, the fact that cyberbullying often takes place outside of school, and anonymous online victimisation can be seen as potential obstacles to dealing with cyberbullying; see Chapter 12 in Burns and Gottschalk ([28]).

PISA 2018 does not directly measure cyberbullying. However, PISA can monitor how bullying is associated with the intensity of Internet use across countries and economies. Evidence suggests longer hours spent on social media may increase the risk of being bullied (Athanasiou et al., 2018Cassidy, Faucher and Jackson, 2013Jones and Mitchell, 2016[29]). Research also shows that greater levels of digital literacy and digital citizenship, such as online respect and civic engagement, were negatively associated with the perpetration of online bullying and positively related to helpful bystander behaviours ([30]; [31]).

In 51 of the 52 countries and economies that distributed the ICT questionnaire (of which 43 also have data on students' exposure to bullying), PISA 2018 asked students how much time they spend using the Internet during the typical weekday and weekend day outside of school. These two questions were combined to calculate the amount of time students spend connected to the Internet during a typical week. Five categories of Internet users were then created based on this indicator: "low Internet user" (0-9 hours per week); "moderate Internet user" (10-19 hours per week); "average Internet user" (20-29 hours per week); "high Internet user" (30-39 hours per week); and "heavy Internet user" (more than 40 hours per week).

In 2018, the analysis shows that for all the categories of Internet use, frequent exposure to bullying increased between 2015 and 2018 (Table III.B1.2.12). The largest increase was observed amongst "low Internet users". On average across OECD countries, 23 % of "low Internet users" reported being bullied at least a few times a month - a 6 percentage-point increase since 2015. Some 28 % of "heavy Internet users" reported being bullied at least a few times a month, a 2 percentage-point increase since 2015.

The results also show that, on average across OECD countries in 2018, the shares of "moderate Internet users" and "average Internet users" who reported being bullied at least a few times a month were smaller than amongst the other groups of Internet users (Table III.B1.2.12). By contrast, students categorised as "heavy Internet users" tended to be the most frequently bullied, both in 2015 and 2018.

These findings imply that students categorised as "heavy Internet users" tended to be more frequently exposed to bullying, both in 2015 and 2018. The analysis also shows that for all the categories of Internet use, frequent exposure to bullying increased between 2015 and 2018. However, these upward changes might be related to PISA including social media as a potential platform for bullying in the 2018 questionnaire.

Examining students' attitudes towards bullying - and towards defending the victims of bullying - may help educators and policy makers in their efforts to develop effective bullying prevention and intervention programmes (Baldry, 2004Baldry and Farrington, 1999[46]; [47]). Such information can also be used to describe the atmosphere in schools where bullying thrives - with the ultimate goal of changing that climate.

Given the growing interest in the topic, PISA 2018 asked students about their general attitudes towards bullying. These attitudes are regarded as moral judgements on bullying behaviour in general; as such, they may differ from the attitudes students hold in relation to bullying in their own school (Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004[48]). PISA monitored five forms of bullying-related attitudes. PISA asked students whether they agree ( "strongly disagree", "disagree", "agree", "strongly agree") with the following statements: "It irritates me when nobody defends bullied students"; "It is a good thing to help students who can't defend themselves"; "It is a wrong thing to join in bullying"; "I feel bad seeing other students bullied"; and "I like it when someone stands up for other students who are being bullied".

Boulton, Bucci and Hawker, 1999 Figure III.2.5 shows the percentage of students who reported that they agree or disagree with the statements related to attitudes towards bullying. Most students across OECD countries expressed negative attitudes towards bullying and positive attitudes towards defending the victims of bullying. On average across OECD countries, 90 % of students agreed or strongly agreed that they like it when someone stands up for other students who are being bullied; 88 % of students agreed or strongly agreed that it is a good thing to help students who can't defend themselves; 87 % of students agreed or strongly agreed that they feel bad seeing other students bullied; and 81 % of students reported that it irritates them when nobody defends bullied students. These results are in line with previous evidence, which indicates that most students express anti-bullying attitudes ([49]).

While 88 % of students reported that they think it is wrong to join in bullying, in some PISA-participating countries and economies, sizable minorities of students disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. For instance, at least three out of ten students in Colombia, Indonesia, Jordan and Morocco disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is wrong to join in bullying ( Figure III.2.5 and Table III.B1.2.15).

Research shows that girls tend to report stronger anti-bullying attitudes than boys do (Rigby and Slee, 1991Salmivalli and Voeten, 2004[50]; [48]). In PISA 2018, the responses to the five statements show that, on average across OECD countries, girls had more negative attitudes towards bullying than boys ( Figure III.2.5 and Table III.B1.2.16). The largest gap between girls and boys was observed for the statement "It irritates me when nobody defends bullied students", followed by "I feel bad seeing other students bullied", "It is a good thing to help students who can't defend themselves", "I like it when someone stands up for other students who are being bullied" and "It is a wrong thing to join in bullying".

On average across OECD countries, about 84 % of boys and 91 % of girls reported that they think it is wrong to join in bullying ( Figure III.2.5). In particular, in Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Saudi Arabia, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Ukraine the proportion of girls who so reported was at least 10 percentage points larger than the share of boys who did (Table III.B1.2.16).

Some 74 % of boys and 88 % of girls agreed or strongly agreed that it irritates them when nobody defends bullied students. In Lithuania and Saudi Arabia, girls were at least 20 percentage points more likely than boys to describe themselves as irritated when nobody defends bullied students, while in Baku (Azerbaijan), B-S-J-Z (China) and Macao (China), the gender difference amounted to around 3 percentage points. These disparities may be related to differences in group values, with girls putting a priority on sociability and intimacy, and boys on toughness, self-confidence and physical prowess (Tulloch, 1995[51]).

Advantaged students were also more likely than disadvantaged students to report anti-bullying attitudes (Table III.B1.2.17). On average across OECD countries, advantaged students were at least five percentage points more likely than their disadvantaged peers to report that they agree or strongly agree with any of the five statements about their attitudes towards bullying.

References

[3] Olweus, D. (1993), Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.

[64] UNESCO (2019), Behind the Numbers: Ending School Violence and Bullying, UNESCO HIV and Health Education Clearinghouse, UNESCO, Paris.

Note

← 1. Due to the slight modification, between 2015 and 2018, of the survey question about students' exposure to bullying, trend results should be interpreted with some caution. In 2015, PISA included two items that were dropped from the PISA 2018 questionnaire. In addition, the PISA 2018 questionnaire included an additional instruction indicating that bullying can also happen in social media. This instruction was missing from the PISA 2015 questionnaire.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bullying is a major problem worldwide with serious consequences for students' lives. This chapter examines differences between countries and economies in students' exposure to bullying at school, and how bullying is associated with student and school characteristics. It also examines how students' exposure to bullying is related to reading performance, to students' attitudes towards bullying, to students' well-being and to school climate.

# data[].attributes.body
„Sie hören in der Pause, wie ein Schüler der sechsten Klasse zu einem anderen sagt: ‚Nein, absolut nicht. Ich habe dir schon mal gesagt, dass du nicht bei uns mitmachen darfst.’ Der Schüler ist isoliert und während der gesamten Pause allein und sieht traurig aus. Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass der Schüler jemanden von ge meinsamen Aktivitäten ausgeschlossen hat.“

# data[].attributes.body
Peer-MediatorInnen in der Klasse können im Verlauf des Deeskalationsprozesses durch minimale, direkte Interventionen bei Aufflammen des Konflikts sowie durch deeskalierende Gespräche mit den beiden Parteien unterstützend wirken.

# data[].attributes.body
Mutter: “Wieso ist denn dein Rucksack schon wieder kaputt? Du weißt doch, das wir nicht so viel Geld haben, um jedes Mal einen neuen kaufen zu können. Du musst besser auf deine Sachen aufpassen! Gib ihn her, ich versuche, ihn zu nähen.”

Wortlos überreiche ich meiner Mutter den gerissenen Rucksack. Es ist das zweite Mal diesen Monat, dass ich mit zerrissenen oder kaputten Gegenständen nach Hause komme. Wieso er schon wieder kaputt ist, verschweige ich. Ich will nicht, dass sie glaubt, ich hätte Probleme in der Schule. Ich will nicht, das sie sich Sorgen macht.

# data[].attributes.body
Kurz nachdem ich aufgewacht bin, fängt es an. Übelkeit, Bauchschmerzen, Schwindel. Ich will nicht zur Schule. Ich will nicht raus. Ich will nicht aufstehen. Ich will, dass es aufhört, ich will, das alles aufhört. Ich habe Angst. Mir ist schlecht. Sie machen mir Angst. Wieso ich. Was habe ich getan. Ich kann es nicht verhindern.

Mutter: “Hanna, Zeit, aufzustehen, sonst verpasst du den Bus.”

# data[].attributes.body
Lehrperson: “Sie wissen ja, wie Kinder sind. Ist es Spaß oder Mobbing, wer weiß das schon. Das ist nur eine Phase, die wird auch wieder vorbei gehen, nicht wahr? Natürlich spreche ich mit den anderen darüber, aber ich bin mir sicher, es ist nichts ernstes. Hanna ist ja jetzt sicher auch in der Pubertät und nimmt das alles nur intensiver war, bestimmt ist es gar nicht so schlimm.”

Ich sitze neben meiner Mutter und schweige. Mir wird eiskalt. Niemand nimmt mich ernst. Niemand glaubt mir. Ich bin ihnen egal. Ich kann nicht mehr.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnmq2hq-En8

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
REAL UNICORNS - TEACHER-PARENT GUIDANCE INTERVIEW EXAMPLE (BULLYING)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Billy Talent - Nothing To Lose - Official Video

# data[].attributes.body
„Die Schule und somit auch die Lehrkräfte haben die Verpflichtung und Verantwortung gegen Mobbing generell und in jedem Einzelfall einzuschreiten. Dazu gelten § 2 SchOG, § 51 SchUG sowie der Aufsichtserlass RS Nr. 15/2005.“