AB 985

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
Volume 23, pages 245–257 (1997)

Cross-National Comparison of Children’s

Attitudes Towards Bully/Victim Problems
in School
E. Menesini,1* M. Eslea,2 P.K. Smith,3 M.L. Genta,4 E. Giannetti,4 A. Fonzi,4
and A. Costabile5
1
Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Italy
2
Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom
3
Goldsmith College, University of London, United Kingdom
4
Department of Psychology, University of Florence, Italy
5
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Calabria, Italy
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Using large-scale survey data from Italy, and England, findings are reported for atti-
tudes to school bullying; specifically the extent to which children expect their teachers,
or other children, to intervene in bullying; and the extent to which children either
empathise with victims of bullying, or state that they themselves would do something
about it. Findings were broadly similar in most respects, in the two countries. Teachers
were thought to intervene fairly often, other children more rarely. Most children had
sympathetic attitudes and behaviour toward victims of bullying, but a significant mi-
nority, including many self-reported bullies, did not. Girls were more empathic to vic-
tims than boys, but were not more likely to intervene. The main cultural difference was
that older Italian children were more empathic than younger children, with the reverse
difference in England. However in both countries, the likelihood of reported inter-
vention was less with older children. The results are discussed in relation to theo-
retical viewpoints, and practical implications for schools. Aggr. Behav. 23:245–257,
1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Key words: bully; victim; attitude; gender

INTRODUCTION
Over the past 10 years there has been an increased interest in the topic of bullying
and victimization in schools [Olweus, 1993; Smith and Sharp, 1994; Rigby, 1996; Ross,
1996]. In a previous paper, we compared Italian prevalence data [Genta et al., 1996]

Received for publication 7 May 1996; accepted 7 November 1996

*Correspondence to: Dr. Ersilia Menesini, Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via
Venezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy.

© 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

246 Menesini et al.

with those obtained in England [Whitney and Smith, 1993], in both cases using a modi-
fied self-report questionnaire [Olweus, 1993]. Bully/victim problems in Italian schools
were manifested at a high level; almost 40% of Italian primary and 28% of middle
school children reported being bullied ‘sometimes or more’ in the last term; and 20%
and 15% respectively reported bullying others in the same period; rates approximately
twice as high as in the English sample.
Besides straightforward frequencies of bullying, attitudes of children to bullying con-
stitute an important, but less well studied, aspect of the phenomenon, an exploration of
which may also contribute to our understanding of cultural differences. How do chil-
dren view bullying, and what would they like to do about it? Do boys and girls differ in
this? Are children who bully others motivated and sustained by the same patterns of
beliefs? The purpose of the present study was to examine these issues, and the extent to
which children expect help from other children, compared to teachers, when bullying
happens. We carried out parallel studies in Italy and England, to see how culture-spe-
cific or general such findings might be. While both countries belong to western culture,
there are relevant differences between them (including overall levels of reported bully-
ing in school) which a study of attitudes may illuminate.
We planned to examine children’s perceptions of bullying in two specific areas:
1) How are teachers, and other children, perceived as intervening in bullying
episodes?
2) What are children’s attitudes towards bullying, in terms of both feelings, and incli-
nation to act in various ways?
The first aim of the study was to compare Italian and English data on children’s
confidence about teachers’ and peers’ interventions against bullying. In England, Whitney
and Smith [1993] found that about half of the victims did not report their being bullied
to adults; and teachers were less likely to be told than parents. Genta et al. [1996] found
even lower proportions in their Italian sample; only 30% of children being bullied told
a teacher and only 40% a parent. This lack of openness towards adults may reflect a
lack of confidence in adults (in teachers especially), in their motivation or ability to
help effectively; some teachers may neglect or minimize victims’ problems.
Recent initiatives in peer counselling as a way of helping victims [Cowie and Sharp,
1996] are premissed on the idea that pupils may be more willing to confide or seek help
in certain other pupils, at least in the first instance. But are other children more sensitive
to the issue and are they perceived as helping more than teachers do? Probably, children
are more aware of bully/victim relationships than teachers are, since they are directly
involved in peer relations, but teachers have more authority to intervene on the behalf
of victims. Therefore, in both countries, we expected teachers to be perceived as more
inclined than children to intervene against bullying.
Regarding the second area, there has been little systematic study of children’s atti-
tudes towards the victims of school bullies. Do children admire bullies and despise
victims or are they opposed to bullying behavior? Rigby and Slee [1991] used the
Provictim scale, a 20-item attitude to bullying scale in an Australian sample of 685
children aged 6 to 16 years. They found that the majority of pupils were opposed to
bullying and tended to be supportive of victims. Girls were slightly but significantly
more provictim than boys. For both sexes a trend toward diminishing provictim scores
with age (over the range 8 to 15 years) was observed. A clear division of opinion among
pupils was also found. A significant minority despised victims for being weak and ad-
 Attitudes to Bullying 247

mired bullies. These attitudes were only weakly related to children’s actual bullying
behaviour, the correlation with their Victimisation index (how often a child had been
bullied by other children) being 0.28. This shows a trend for victimised children to be
more supportive of victims, but it would be of interest to compare the attitudes of the
four main bully/victim types identified by previous research [e.g., Bowers et al., 1994];
that is bullies, victims, bully/victims (those who report being both bullying others, and
being bullied), and controls, or comparison group of those who report neither bullying
others or being bullied.
Girls could be expected to have more positive attitudes towards victims than boys,
since they engage less frequency in bullying actions; and females are typically de-
scribed as more empathic [Hoffman, 1977] and more prosocial than males [Miller et
al., 1991]. However, other aspects of Rigby and Slee’s [1991] results are surprising.
Rather than a decrease, we might have expected an increase in support for victims with
age. The frequency of reports of being bullied generally decreases from primary to
secondary school [Olweus, 1993; Whitney and Smith, 1993; Rigby, 1996], and empa-
thy skills increase with age giving the possibility for individuals to have greater con-
cern for victims; Arsenio and Kramer [1992] found that whereas 4-year-old children
attributed generally positive emotions to children who victimised others, 8-year-old
children attributed both positive and negative emotions, being more aware of harmful
consequences of victimisation.
Also surprising is the weak relationship that Rigby and Slee [1991] found between
attitudes, and bully/victim behaviour. From studies on aggression in school-aged chil-
dren, we know that aggressive boys show a general bias to interpret others’ intention as
hostile [Dodge and Frame, 1982; Dodge and Newman, 1981; Gouze, 1987]. In addi-
tion, aggressive school children have been found to be more likely than nonaggressive
children to endorse the belief that aggression will reduce aversive treatment by others
and produce tangible rewards [Perry et al., 1986], and that aggression is a legitimate
response, increases self-esteem and does not lead to suffering by the victim [Slaby and
Guerra, 1988]. This would lead to the prediction that children who bully others would
have less positive attitudes to victims, than other children.
In this study we distinguished between thoughts and feelings about bullying, and
inclination to act to support a victim or join in bullying. We also aimed to find out how
such attitudes vary between primary and secondary schools, between boys and girls,
and according to bully/victim status; and whether such variations are consistent across
the two countries. Rather than focus on differences between the two countries (which
could be open to several interpretations, including that of linguistic translation of terms),
we focus primarily on the structure of findings in these two cultural contexts.

METHOD
Sample
In the Italian sample 1,379 pupils took part from two cities, Florence and Cosenza. In
Florence (Central Italy) there were 246 pupils (126 boys and 120 girls) from five pri-
mary schools, and 538 pupils (299 boys and 239 girls) from four middle schools. In
Cosenza (Southern Italy) there were 298 pupils (160 boys and 138 girls) from four
primary schools, and 297 pupils (146 boys and 151 girls) from four middle schools.
The age range was 8 to 11 years in primary school and 11 to 14 years in middle school.
248 Menesini et al.

The school sample represented different town districts (half of the sample from a cen-
tral area of the two towns, the rest from the suburbs), with half of each from low-
income families and half from high-income families.
The English sample comprised 6,758 pupils from 24 schools in the Sheffield LEA.
There were 2,623 pupils (1,271 boys and 1,352 girls) from 17 primary schools; and
4,135 pupils (2,152 boys and 1,938 girls) from seven secondary schools. The age range
was 8 to 11 years in primary school and 11 to 16 years in secondary school. These
schools represented all socioeconomic areas of the city and had a wide range of catch-
ment areas and school policies.
The age range between the two countries was comparable for primary schools (8–11
years) but slightly different for middle/secondary schools (11–14 years in Italy com-
pared to 11–16 years in England). This difference reflects a particular aspect of the
Italian school system which requires compulsory education until only 14 years of age.
Measures
In both countries, a slightly modified version of the Olweus questionnaire [1993]
was used. The questionnaire is an anonymous, self-report instrument. In the Italian
version, the word “prepotenze’ was used for ‘bullying.’ A definition of bullying was
provided to give pupils a clear understanding of what they were to respond to: “We say
a child is being bullied, or picked on when another child, or a group of children, say
nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a child is hit, kicked,
threatened, locked inside a room, sent nasty notes, when no one ever talks to them, and
things like that. These things can happen frequently and it is difficult for the child being
bullied to defend himself or herself. It is also bullying when a child is teased repeatedly
in a nasty way. But it is not bullying when two children of about the same strength have
the odd fight or quarrel.”
The term ‘young person’ was used instead of ‘child’ for middle and secondary pupils
in both Italian and English versions.
The Italian questionnaires were administered in May, 1993 and the English question-
naires in late November, 1990, by adults who were not the pupils’ usual teachers. Al-
though the time of year was different in the two countries, questions about being bullied
and bullying others referred to a specific time period (10 weeks) in both countries. In
both samples the same standardized instructions were closely followed.
To classify children according to bully/victim type, two items of the questionnaire
were used: “How often have you been bullied this term?” and “How often have you
bullied other children this term?” Each item had five response options: “Never,” “Once
or twice,” “Sometimes,” “About once a week,” or “Several times a week.” Those who
had been bullied “sometimes” or more were classed as victims; those who had bullied
others “sometimes” or more were classed as bullies; those who had both bullied others
and been bullied at least “sometimes” as bully-victims; and other children as the com-
parison group.
For the purpose of the present paper five attitude items from the questionnaire were
analysed; the findings from other items regarding the extent and the nature of bullying
were reported in Genta et al. [1996] and by Whitney and Smith [1993].
Two questions on who tries to stop bullying were common to both Italian and En-
glish questionnaires: (1,2) “How often do the teachers try to stop it when a child is
bullied at school?” and “How often do other children try to stop it when a child is
 Attitudes to Bullying 249

bullied at school?” Response options: “I don’t know” (ignored for purposes of data
analysis), “Almost never,” “Sometimes,” “Almost always” [scored 1,2,3, respectively].
As regards thoughts and feelings components of attitudes to bullying, one question
was common to both Italian and English questionnaires: (3) What do you think about
children who bully others?
Response options: “I can understand why they do it,” “I don’t know,” “It’s difficult to
understand why they do it,” “It upsets me a lot that they do it” [scored 1,2,3,4, respec-
tively]. One question was in the Italian version only: (3a) How do you feel when you
see a child of your age being bullied at school?
Response options: “I don’t feel anything,” “It upset me a little,” “It upset me a lot”
[scored 1,2,3, respectively].
Regarding the inclination to action component of attitudes, one question was com-
mon to both Italian and English questionnaires: (4) What do you do when you see a
child of your age being bullied at school? Response options: “Nothing, it is none of my
business,” “Nothing but I think I ought to try and help,” “I try to help him or her in some
way” [scored 1,2,3 respectively]. One question was in the English version only: (4a)
Could you join in bullying a child that you don’t like?
Response options: “Yes, maybe,” “I don’t know,” “No I don’t think so,” “No” [scored
1,2,3,4 respectively].

RESULTS
The results of the classification of children in each bully/victim type are presented in
Table I. The percentages of bullies, victims and bully/victims are higher in Italy
than in England, both at primary and at middle/secondary schools. This reflects
the higher incidence of the phenomenon in Italy than in England, reported earlier
[Genta et al., 1996].
The remaining items in the questionnaire (2 on teachers’ and pupils’ intervention, 5
on attitudes) were all analysed using an independent-groups Anova, the factors being
sex (2), school type (2), and bully-victim type (4). Where appropriate, results of post-
hoc Scheffe tests are reported for differences between specific bully/victim types.

TABLE I. Number and Percentages of Pupils in Each Bully/Victim Type, by School Type and Country
Bullies Victims Bully-victims Comparison group Total
Italy
Primary school
N 45 156 69 272 542
% 8.3 28.8 12.7 50.2
Middle school
N 72 182 58 522 834
% 8.6 21.8 7.0 62.6
England
Primary school
N 147 555 116 1774 2592
% 5.7 21.4 4.5 68.4
Middle school
N 205 352 50 3460 4067
% 5.0 8.7 1.2 85.1
250 Menesini et al.

The mean results for question (1) and (2) on perception of teachers and children’s
intervention against bullying are shown in Tables IIa and b; high scores represent per-
ception of greater likelihood of intervention. In both countries children are noticeably
more confident of teachers’ help than peers’ help (2.32 vs. 1.86 total mean in Italy; 2.28
vs. 1.73 total mean in England).
For perception of teachers’ help (Table IIa), in both countries there was a significant
main effect of sex. The trend was the same in both countries, with girls rating teachers
as more likely to help, than boys. In neither country was there a significant main effect
of school type. In England only, there was a significant main effect of bully/victim type,
with victims of bullying having a significantly lower score (2.09) than children not
involved (2.33), P < .05. In Italy, the interaction of school type and bully/victim type
was significant, F(3,995) = 3.63, P < .05; in primary school, bully/victims and victims
were more confident of teacher intervention and bullies the least, whereas in middle
school bully/victims were the least confident of this, and bullies the most confident. No
further interactions were significant, in either country.
For perceptions of help from other children (Table IIb), in neither country was there
a significant main effect of sex. In England only, there was a significant main effect of
school type, with primary school pupils having a significantly higher score (1.86) than
secondary pupils (1.65); the corresponding trend in Italy was the same (1.89 vs. 1.84)
but not quite significant (P < .10). In both countries there was a significant main effect
of bully/victim type. The trend was different, with bully/victims less confident of peer
help in Italy (1.65) than those not involved (1.92), but more confident in England (2.98)
than any of the other groups, P < .05. None of the interactions were significant, in either
country.
The mean results for question (3) on what pupils think about children who bully
others, are shown in Table III; high scores represent more feelings of upset at bullying.
In both countries there was a significant main effect of sex. The trend was the same,
with girls being more upset by bullying than boys. In both countries there was a signifi-
cant effect of school type. The trend was different, however; in Italy middle school
children showed more upset than primary school children, whereas in England it was
primary school children who showed more upset.
In England only, there was a significant main effect of bully-victim type; victims
reported feeling more upset (2.65) than any other bully/victim type, and bullies less
upset than any other type (2.08), all P < .05. In Italy the effect was not significant, but
the trend was the same. A significant two-way interaction between bully/victim type
and school type was also found in both countries; F(3,1375) = 2.94 for the Italian sample
and F(3,6650) = 3.09 for the English sample. In the Italian sample the difference be-
tween victims and bullies is small in primary schools (victims 3.06, bullies 2.91), but
greater in middle schools (victims 3.43, bullies 3.04). In the English sample the differ-
ence between bullies and victims is present in primary and middle schools; but bully-
victims are more similar to bullies in middle schools. The other two way and three-way
interaction were not significant.
The Italian version of the questionnaire only, contained question (3a) on feelings
about seeing bullying. Significant main effects were found for sex, F(1,1375) = 31.72,
for school type, F(1,1375) = 6.41, and for bully-victim type, F(3,1375) = 5.40. Girls
reported feeling more upset at seeing bullying than boys (mean 2.83 vs. 2.64). Middle
school children report feeling more upset than primary school children (mean 2.77 vs.
TABLE IIa. How Often Do Teachers Try to Stop Bullying‡
Univariate Anova results
Boys Girls Primary school Middle school Bullies Victims Bully-victims Comparison group Sex School type Bully-victim type
Italy
N 533 463 375 621 85 255 116 540 F(1, 995) F(1,995) F(3,995)
Mean 2.24 2.41 2.32 2.32 2.39 2.29 2.25 2.34 11.28*** .03 .94
SD 0.81 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.80 0.81 0.75 0.77
England
N 2037 2049 1715 2371 244 657 132 3032 F(1,4064) F(1,4064) F(3,4064)
Mean 2.22 2.34 2.31 2.25 2.21 2.09 2.17 2.33 4.62* 2.6 24.19***
SD 0.77 0.71 0.75 0.74 0.77 0.78 0.72 0.72
‡
Descriptive data and main effects of Anova by sex, school type, and bully-victim type in the Italian and the English samples.
*P < .05.
**P < .01.
***P < .001.

TABLE IIb. How Often Do Other Children Try to Stop Bullying‡

Univariate Anova results
Boys Girls Primary school Middle school Bullies Victims Bully-victims Comparison group Sex School type Bully-victim type
Italy
N 533 463 375 621 85 255 116 540 F(1, 995) F(1,995) F(3,995)

Attitudes to Bullying
Mean 1.86 1.85 1.89 1.84 1.88 1.82 1.65 1.92 0.24 3.24 5.65***
SD 0.74 0.55 0.68 0.71 0.77 0.69 0.65 0.71
England
N 2349 2178 1843 2684 274 703 128 3402 F(1,4506) F(1,4506) F(3,4506)
Mean 1.71 1.76 1.86 1.65 1.66 1.75 1.98 1.73 2.71 26.80*** 5.39***
SD 0.63 0.62 0.66 0.58 0.66 0.65 0.73 0.61
‡
Descriptive data and main effects of Anova by sex, school type, and bully-victim type in the Italian and the English samples.
*P < .05.
**P < .01.

251
***P < .001.
 252
Menesini et al.
TABLE III. What Do You Think About Children Who Bully Others‡
Univariate Anova results
Boys Girls Primary school Middle school Bullies Victims Bully-victims Comparison group Sex School type Bully-victim type
Italy
N 730 646 542 834 117 338 127 794 F(1, 1375) F(1,1375) F(3,1375)
Mean 3.13 3.29 3.05 3.30 2.99 3.27 3.05 3.23 6.85** 18.15*** 2.19
SD 1.1 0.98 1.08 1.02 1.1 1.05 1.14 1.03
England
N 3383 3302 2599 4066 352 907 166 5234 F(1,6658) F(1,6658) F(3,6658)
Mean 2.33 2.61 2.55 2.41 2.08 2.65 2.40 2.47 5.96* 21.02*** 21.37***
SD 0.96 1.02 1.08 0.94 0.94 1.09 1.06 0.98
‡
Descriptive data and main effects of Anova by sex, school type, and bully-victim type in the Italian and the English samples.
*P < .05.
**P < .01.
***P < .001.
 Attitudes to Bullying 253

2.68). Victims, and the comparison group (both mean 2.77) report feeling more upset
than bullies or bully/victims (mean 2.59 and 2.55), both P < .05. The two-way and
three-way interactions were not significant.
The results for question (4), on what pupils would do when they saw a child of their
age being bullied are shown in Table IV; high scores represent more prosocial actions.
In neither country was the main effect for sex significant. In both countries there was a
significant main effect of school type. The trend was the same in both countries; pri-
mary school children say they would intervene on a victim’s behalf more often than
middle or secondary school children (Table IV). In both countries there was a signifi-
cant main effect of bully-victim type. In Italy victims were more likely to report inter-
vening than bullies; in England, victims were more likely to report intervening than not
involved pupils or bullies, and bullies were less likely to intervene than any other bully/
victim types (all P < .05).
A significant two-way interaction between school type and bully/victim type was
found, for the Italian sample only, F(1,1375) = 3.85, P < .05; the difference between
bullies and victims is present only in primary schools (victims 2.76, bullies 2.31), but
not in middle schools (victims 2.57, bullies 2.57). The other two-way and three-way
interactions were not significant.
The English version of the questionnaire contained question (4a) about likelihood of
joining in bullying. There were significant main effects of school type F(1,6678) =
53.90 and of bully/victim status F(3,6678) = 103.09, but no significant effect of sex.
Primary school children more than secondary school children said they would not join
in bullying other children they did not like (mean 2.99 vs. 2.60). Victims most often
said they would not join in bullying, whereas bullies most often answered “yes, maybe”
or “I don’t know” (victims 2.89, bullies 1.78, P < .05). The two-way and three-way
interactions were not significant.

DISCUSSION
Do children have more confidence in help from teachers, or other children? Regard-
ing this first aim of the study, the results are very clear. In both Italy and England,
children show more confidence that teachers, rather than other children, will try to stop
bullying. Teachers are generally seen to intervene between ‘sometimes’ and ‘almost
always,’ whereas other children are seen to intervene between ‘almost never’ and ‘some-
times.’ In both Italy and England, girls are more confident of teachers’ help than boys
are; younger pupils are more confident of help from other children, than are older chil-
dren. The effects of bully/victim type were not consistent across the two countries.
What about attitudes of children toward bullying? Regarding this second aim of our
study, it is also clear that the majority of children, both in the Italian and English samples,
are opposed to bullies and supportive towards victims. Our discussion will focus on the
structure of responses by sex, school type, and bully/victim type in the two countries.
In both countries, differences between boys and girls emerge as an important aspect
in considering children’s thoughts and feelings component of attitudes towards bully-
ing. For question 3, Table III (and question 3a in the Italian sample), girls reported
being more upset at bullying. This is in line with previous studies reporting that girls
usually have a more positive attitude towards victims than boys [Rigby and Slee, 1991].
 254
Menesini et al.
TABLE IV. What Do You Do When You See A Child of Your School Type Being Bullied‡
Univariate Anova results
Boys Girls Primary school Middle school Bullies Victims Bully-victims Comparison group Sex School type Bully-victim type
Italy
N 730 646 542 834 117 338 127 794 F(1, 1375) F(1,1375) F(3,1375)
Mean 2.60 2.62 2.66 2.57 2.47 2.66 2.57 2.61 .135 5.89** 2.56*
SD 0.66 0.59 0.66 0.60 0.74 0.63 0.64 0.61
England
N 3375 3286 2594 4067 350 908 167 5206 F(1,6630) F(1,6630) F(3,6630)
Mean 2.20 2.24 2.33 2.15 2.0 2.35 2.31 2.21 .052 40.80*** 12.39***
SD 0.77 0.71 0.78 0.71 0.83 0.73 0.81 0.73
‡
Descriptive data and main effects of Anova by sex, school type, and bully-victim type in the Italian and the English samples.
*P < .05.
**P < .01.
***P < .001.
 Attitudes to Bullying 255

However for the action component of attitudes, question 4, Table IV (and question 4a in
the English sample) there is no sex difference.
Some insight into why these sex differences vary between attitudes and action may
be gained from work by Archer and Parker [1994] on the social representation of ag-
gression in boys and girls. When given short scenarios such as ‘I believe my anger
comes from ...’ or ‘When I fall out with someone, I am most likely to ...’, they found
that girls more than boys tend to give expressive replies such ‘losing my self control’ or
‘cry’; boys are more likely than girls to give instrumental responses such as ‘being
pushed too far by people I don’t like’ or ‘want to get back at them.’ Archer and Parker
[1994] found these differences to be constant with age for a sample of 8- to 11-year-old
English children, and to apply to both direct and indirect aggression. They conclude
that “there is a general sex difference in reactions to aggressive or hostile acts,” found
also in adults, and which may ultimately link to the different reproductive strategies of
the two sexes.
Our own findings are compatible with this sex difference in representations. Girls
report being more affected emotionally, being more upset, by bullying, which is an
expressive response; but when it comes to intervening, a more instrumental response,
the sex difference disappears. The relatively greater willingness of boys to act, com-
pared to feeling upset, may relate to boys greater wish to be in control [Archer and
Parker, 1994]; also, girls may perceive more danger in trying to stop bullying, given
that girls are generally physically weaker than boys, and that much bullying is reported
to be by one boy or several boys [Whitney and Smith, 1993; Genta et al., 1996] and that
bullies are often physically stronger than their classmates [Olweus, 1993].
Differences in children’s attitudes related to age (assessed here by school type) yielded
the most marked differences by country, in our two samples. In terms of thoughts and
feelings towards bullying behaviour, the anti-bullying attitude is greater in the older
Italian children, but less in the older English children (question 3,3a; Table III). In
terms of actions to help, in both countries there is a decrease from primary to middle/
secondary school (question 4,4a; Table IV). More middle/secondary than primary school
children say they would not help a victim, or could join in bullying other children. The
school type differences are generally similar for both boys and girls. Furthermore, this
decrease in the likelihood of older children saying they would act to help a victim, is
consistent with our findings that older children also expect less help from peers (discus-
sion of findings in Table IIb).
The differences between Italy and England in some of the findings may reflect cultural
variations in school values and attitudes, but the age differences between the Italian middle
and English secondary schools are also a confounding factor. In addition, closer inspection
of the differing results between Italy and England on question (3), regarding what pupils
think about bullying, reveals a major difference in response option 4, “it upsets me a lot”/
‘‘mi danno molto fastidio”; this received 48% of choices from Italian primary children,
60% from secondary; but only 26% from English primary pupils and 12% secondary.
Besides any cultural explanation in terms of school differences, there may be a linguistic
confound present for this item, since the Italian phrase might be translated as “it bothers me
a lot” or “it annoys me a lot,” with a less specific empathic meaning than “it upsets me a
lot.” For reasons such as these, we put more emphasis on consistency of findings between
the two countries, than on explaining differences.
The differences regarding bully/victim type, and notably those between bullies and
256 Menesini et al.

victims, are consistent in both countries. Bullies are more inclined to understand those
who bully others, and feel less sympathetic towards victim’s suffering. They are less
inclined to intervene when they witness a bullying episode and are more inclined to join
in bullying other children they don’t like. Our results are in line with other studies on
school-aged children and adolescents that stress the importance of beliefs in sustaining
and orienting children’s social behaviour [Eron, 1987; Slaby and Guerra, 1988]. Slaby
and Guerra [1988] found that delinquent and aggressive boys, more than nonaggressive
individuals, hold beliefs that aggression is a legitimate response which increases self-
esteem and avoids a negative image; and that victims don’t suffer and deserve aggres-
sion. Many bullies see little wrong in their bullying behaviour, while they show little
awareness of the victims’ feelings and assert that the victims in one way or another
often deserved the bullying [Smith et al., 1993].
In conclusion, these data give a picture of bullying attitudes consistent in most re-
spects across the two countries. In Italy and England, despite the different overall levels
of bullying and victimisation, the general attitudes towards the phenomenon seem to be
similar so far as sex and bully/victim status are concerned. School type or age differ-
ences between the two countries need to be further investigated since they were consis-
tent when children were asked about actions against bullying behaviours, but not when
they were asked about thoughts and feelings components of attitudes. Further cross-
national research might profitably include a more complete developmental analysis of
children’s attitudes towards bullying in order to better compare the age trend in the
different countries. A more articulated and complete measure of children’s attitudes
might be used, which takes into account different patterns of provictim and anti-bully-
ing attitudes. In addition research is needed which could relate children’s attitudes to
those of relevant adults like teachers and parents.
There are practical implications of these results for intervention strategies in schools.
First, it is clear that most pupils do not like bullying. This is a positive aspect for cur-
riculum work and policy development against bullying [Sharp and Smith, 1994; Rigby,
1996]. However, the negative views of some pupils, and especially those likely to be
engaged in bullying themselves, needs to be borne in mind. Second, despite differing
results in the two countries concerning differences in empathic feelings between older
and younger children, there is consistency throughout our data that when comparing
middle/secondary to primary school children, there is a decrease in willingness to
act against bullying, and a decrease in confidence that other children will help.
This presents a challenge to school systems and to personal and social education;
how can this trend towards nonintervention in older children be reversed? How
can the ‘silent majority’ of pupils who dislike bullying be empowered to respond
in more proactive ways? Positive change here would seem to depend upon the
active involvement of pupils in anti-bullying work within the school community,
giving them some true responsibilities in this respect. Peer counselling [Cowie
and Sharp, 1996] is one approach, which does seem able to harness the feelings
and the actions of some pupils (many of whom have experienced victimisation
themselves, previously). More widely, the active participation of pupils in school
policy development against bullying holds promise of assisting enduring changes
in the school ethos, and in the behaviour as well as the thoughts of pupils [Smith
and Sharp, 1994].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all the schools and pupils who participated in the study.
REFERENCES
Archer J, Parker S (1994): Social representations of
aggression in children. Aggressive Behavior
20:101–114.
Arsenio WF, Kramer R (1992): Victimisers and their
victims: Children’s conceptions of the mixed
emotional consequences of moral transgression.
Child Development 63:915–927.
Bowers L, Smith PK, Binney V (1994): Perceived
family relationships of bullies, victims and bully/
victims in middle childhood. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships 11:215–232.
Cowie H, Sharp S (eds) (1996): “Peer Counselling
in Schools: A Time to Listen.” London: David
Fulton.
Dodge KA, Frame CL (1982): Social cognitive bi-
ases and deficits in aggressive boys. Child De-
velopment 53:629–635.
Dodge KA, Newman JP (1981): Biased decision-
making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology 90:375–379.
Eron LD (1987): The development of aggressive
behavior from a perspective of a developing be-
haviorist. America Psychologist 4:435–442.
Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A, Costabile A, Smith
PK (1996): Bullies and victims in schools in cen-
tral and southern Italy. European Journal of Psy-
chology of Education 11:97–110.
Gouze KR (1987): Attention and social problem solv-
ing as correlates of aggression in preschool
males. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
15:181–197.
Hoffman ML (1977): Sex differences in empathy and
related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin
84:712–722.
Miller PA, Bernzweig J, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA
(1991): The development and socialization of
Attitudes to Bullying 257
prosocial behavior. In Hinde RA, Groebel J (eds):
“Cooperation and Prosocial Behavior.” Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 54–77.
Olweus D (1993): “Bullying at School. What We
Know and What We Can Do.” Oxford: Blackwell.
Perry DG, Perry LC, Rasmussen P (1986): Cogni-
tive social-learning mediators of aggression.
Child Development 57:700–711.
Rigby K (1996): “Bullying in Schools: and What to
do About It.” Melbourne: ACER.
Rigby K, Slee PT (1991): Bullying among Austra-
lian school children: reported behavior and atti-
tudes towards victims. Journal of Social
Psychology 131:615–627.
Ross D (1996): “Childhood Bullying and Teasing:
What School Personnel, Other Professionals, and
Parents Can Do.” Alexandria, VA: American
Counselling Association.
Slaby RG, Guerra N (1988): Cognitive mediators of
aggression in adolescent offenders: Assessment.
Developmental Psychology 24:580–588.
Sharp S, Smith PK (eds) (1994): “Tackling Bully-
ing in your School: A Practical Handbook for
Teachers.” London: Routledge.
Smith PK, Bowers L, Binney V, Cowie H (1993):
Relationships of children involved in bully/vic-
tim problems at school. In Duck S (ed) “Under-
standing Relationship Processes, Vol. 2: Learning
About Relationships.” Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
pp 184–212.
Smith PK, Sharp S (eds) (1994): “School Bullying:
Insights and Perspectives.” London: Routledge.
Whitney I, Smith PK (1993): A survey of the
nature and the extent of bullying in junior,
middle and secondary schools. Educational
Research 35:3–25.