Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Bullying in South-East Asian Countries: A review

Ruthaychonnee Sittichai a,, Peter K. Smith b
a
Prince of Songkla University, Thailand
b
Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bullying among young people is a major concern for educators and health professionals. It has been mostly stud-
Received 12 February 2015 ied in Western countries, but with a signicant amount of research in the Asian Pacic Rim countries of Japan,
Received in revised form 27 May 2015 South Korea, Mainland China and Hong Kong, which suggests that it can exhibit different characteristics in
Accepted 17 June 2015
other cultural contexts. Research in this area in South-East Asian countries has been relatively neglected, but
Available online 3 July 2015
has begun to appear in recent years. Here, we review studies on bullying in the 10 ASEAN countries. We summa-
Keywords:
rize the nature and main ndings of these studies, and comment on similarities and differences with studies in
Bully Western and Asian Pacic Rim societies. Finally we make suggestions for future research which will enhance
Cyberbully comparability, respecting cultural differences but moving toward a more effective comparative analysis.
ASEAN 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
South-east Asia

Contents

1. Studies in Western and Asian Pacic Rim societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2. Comparative neglect of studies in South-East Asian countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Literature search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Data presented in Table 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1. Sample size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2. Date of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3. Language and linguistic terms used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4. Denitions of bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5. Measures used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.6. Main ndings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Two comparative data sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. Comparative data from GSHS (Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2. Comparative data from TIMMS (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Research on bullying by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1. Countries with no local research: Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Myanmar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Countries with one extended report: Cambodia and Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2.1. Cambodia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2.2. Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3. Countries with limited local research: Indonesia, Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3.1. Indonesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3.2. Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4. Countries with more extensive local research: Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.1. Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.2. Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.3. Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1. Limitations of reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Corresponding author at: Prince of Songkla University, Muang, Pattani 94000, Thailand.
E-mail address: ruthsittichai@gmail.com (R. Sittichai).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.06.002
1359-1789/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235 23

7.2. Prevalence of bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

7.3. Cyberbullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.4. Gender differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.5. Other ndings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.6. A call for more qualitative research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.7. Moving toward explanations for cultural differences in bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.8. Neglect of some important variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.9. Relevance for interventions to reduce bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Website references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Bullying, or the systematic abuse of power, can be physical, verbal, or
relational, and direct (face-to-face) or indirect. Bullying is generally con-
sidered as a subset of aggression, distinguished by the criteria of repeti-
tion, and imbalance of power (Olweus, 1999). In the last decade
especially, cyberbullying has emerged through the use of modern com-
munication technologies (Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder, & Lattanner,
2014), with some debate as to whether the same dening criteria
apply (Bauman, Cross, & Walker, 2013).
Bullying has been extensively studied in Western countries. Howev-
er a signicant amount of research in the Asian Pacic Rim countries
suggests that it can exhibit different characteristics in other cultural
contexts, and points to cultural and educational aspects of interest in ex-
planations of this. Research in the 10 ASEAN countries of South-East
Asian countries is comparatively sparse, but is starting to appear. Here,
we review published studies on bullying in these countries, including
their characteristics and methodological features. We summarize the
main ndings of these studies, comment on similarities and differences
with studies in Western and Pacic Rim societies, and note some limita-
tions of the research to date. We conclude with suggestions for how fu-
ture research can respect cultural differences but move toward a more
effective comparative analysis.
1. Studies in Western and Asian Pacic Rim societies
Most of the now extensive research on bullying and cyberbullying
has been carried out in Western countries. For example, the Handbook
of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective (Jimerson, Swearer,
& Espelage, 2010) has 41 chapters, but only 2 represent perspectives
outside Europe, North America and Australia (1 comparative, 1 on
Japan).
Prevalence gures from Western countries are available from the
Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) surveys, which col-
lect data from 11-, 13- and 15-year olds from nationally representative
samples, every 4 years. The reports on bullying are based on a single vic-
tim item and a single bully item, adapted from the Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire (Solberg & Olweus, 2003); a widely-used denition of
bullying is given (mentioning repetition, and imbalance of power). Vic-
tim or bully rates are calculated from at least two or three times in the
past couple of months or more (so, ignoring it only happened once or
twice). The 2005/2006 survey gives average rates (over 40 countries)
of 10.7% for bullying others, and 12.6% for being bullied (victims)
(Craig et al., 2009). The 2009/2010 survey gives average rates (over 38
countries) of 10.3% for bullying others, and 11.3% for being bullied
(Currie et al., 2012). The countries surveyed are mostly European, but
also include the United States, Canada, Russian Federation, and
Ukraine; no data from Asian countries is included.
The phenomenon of bullying does appear to have some broad simi-
larities across these Western cultures, but there are differences as well
as similarities with the forms it takes in Asian Pacic Rim societies; sub-
stantial research has taken place in Japan, South Korea, Mainland China
and Hong Kong (see Smith, Kwak, & Toda, in press).
In Japan, Kanetsuna and Smith (2002); Kanetsuna, Smith, and
Morita (2006) compared ijime (the term closest to bullying in
Japanese) and bullying in England. They found some signicant differ-
ences. In Japan, pupils reported ijime as most likely to come from pupils
that they knew well, of similar age and often within the classroom; in
England, pupils reported bullying as often coming from pupils they did
not know well, often older, and often in the playground.
A somewhat similar pattern of difference comes from studies of
wang-ta in South Korea, by Koo, Kwak, and Smith (2008) and Lee,
Smith, and Monks (2011, 2012). Wang-ta also seems to occur between
pupils who know each other (e.g. former friends). Within a classroom
context this can mean the whole class shunning one pupil. It can take
the form of even more severe social exclusion, where another term
jun-ta refers to the whole school labeling the victim and shunning that
person.
Japan, and South Korea, are considered as more collectivist societies
than most Western industrialized countries (Hofstede, Hofstede, &
Minkov, 2010); a more collectivistic culture may imply a greater possi-
bility of concerted whole-group (e.g. whole-class) norms emerging,
which could at times be aggressivethus the possibility of severe
whole-class aggression and shunning of a victim. In addition, Japan
and South Korea may be considered more hierarchical, scoring high on
the Hofstede (1980) power distance index; there is more respect for
older persons, including older pupils, such that (ab)use of power by
older persons will be more likely to be seen as legitimate and not as bul-
lying (Hofstede, 1980; Smith, Bond, & Kagitibasi, 2005).
There have also been a number of studies of bullying in Mainland
China, and Hong Kong. Schwartz, Chang, and Farver (2001) examined
peer group victimization in a Chinese primary school. The correlates of
victimization, such as poorer academic functioning, submissive-
withdrawn behavior, and aggression, suggested considerable similarity
in the processes underlying peer group victimization across Chinese and
Western cultural settings (p.520); and subsequently, in a similar study
in Hong Kong schools, Tom, Schwartz, Chang, Farver, and Xu (2010)
stated that they were able to replicate the behavioral and academic
correlates of peer victimization from past research conducted in the
West and Mainland China with children in Hong Kong (p.35); although
they noted that forms of victimization that involve social exclusion and
causing harm to relationships may be particularly relevant in Chinese
children's peer groups (p.35). Wong, Lok, Lo, and Ma (2008) also re-
ported on frequency and correlates of bullying in Hong Kong primary
schools; one notable aspect in their report was an appreciable frequency
of extortion as well as the more familiar forms of bullying from West-
ern studies.
In summary, studies of bullying in the Asian Pacic Rim countries
suggest that there may be important differences from western countries
in terms of who does the bullying (friends in the same class, or relative
strangers), where it happens (classroom, playground), and types of bul-
lying (severity of social exclusion, prevalence of extortion). In addition,
denitions of bullying-like phenomena show linguistic variation, and
may be inuenced by what is viewed as legitimate or illegitimate
power relations. Possible explanatory factors for these differences may
24 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235

be cultural (for example, the individualism-collectivism and power
distance index dimensions of Hofstede et al., 2010), and/or they may
be inuenced by schooling variables (for example, prevalence of home-
room class teaching in secondary schools, which is higher in Japan than
many western countries; Kanetsuna et al., 2006).
2. Comparative neglect of studies in South-East Asian countries
In his doctoral thesis on bullying in schools in Vietnam, Horton
(2011, p.15) wrote that There has until now been almost no research
about school bullying in Vietnam , or indeed in any Southeast Asian
context. Nevertheless, although neglected in relative terms, recent
years have started to see a signicant number of such publications in
South-East Asian countries. Here, we review the literature on bullying
and cyberbullying in the 10 ASEAN countries: Brunei Darussalam,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. These countries are more collectivist
than the predominately individualistic cultures of Western Europe,
North America, and Australasia (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede et al.,
2010), and they are high on the power distance index; but they differ
from Japan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong in being less industrial-
ized, and many having large Muslim (Indonesia, Malaysia) or Catholic
(Philippines) as well as Buddhist populations.
The South-East Asian countries together comprise a population of
over 622 million people, or about 16% of the world's total population.
Table 1 shows (as of 2012) the population and ofcial languages of
each country in 2012, and percent internet penetration (relevant for
consideration of cyberbullying); internet penetration is very high in
Brunei, Singapore, and Malaysia, and also above the world average of
27.5% in Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines. It also shows GDP per
capita, which we refer to later in terms of country differences in re-
search activity.
Previously, Sittichai and Smith (2013) reviewed studies on bullying
and cyberbullying in Thailand, commenting on progress made and is-
sues arising. Here, we aim to review the studies on bullying carried
out in all 10 ASEAN countries; to compare with ndings in Western
and Pacic Rim cultures; and to offer constructive criticism for how
further research in these countries may be taken forward in a way
that respects cultural differences but may better enable cross-cultural
comparisons.
3. Literature search
A literature search was conducted for publications on bullying (in-
cluding cyberbullying) in these 10 countries, up to 2014. We searched
through Science Direct, PsycINFO, Springer Link, DAO, Google Scholar
and Google, and also contacted researchers in the ASEAN countries to
request more information and studies. Here we review published arti-
cles and reports, and accessible master's or doctoral theses; we do not
include a number of newspaper reports where there is no academic or
refereed publication to give fuller details. We include any study which
is purportedly on bullying or cyberbullying, or in the latter case on inter-
net or online harassment; we do not include articles on aggression or
physical ghting which make no claim to be about bullying. We review
studies published (or with an abstract) in English, but mention signi-
cant other-language material in the text. We summarize the main stud-
ies by country in Table 2. In the text we give more details of the ndings
of each study.
4. Data presented in Table 2
4.1. Sample size
We give the number and age of participants. In the text we give any
relevant details of recruitment, for example number of schools sampled,
and regional area.
4.2. Date of study
We indicate the year or date at which the data was collected, if given
(which can differ substantially from the year of publication). Many
studies do not report this, but it is importanta point made generally
by Hofstede et al. (2010, p.338), and specically for bullying by Smith
(2010), in the light of historical changes in the denition of bullying,
forms of bullying, changing educational practices, and the impact of
large-scale anti-bullying campaigns or interventions.
4.3. Language and linguistic terms used
This is important since many languages do not have a linguistic
term that closely corresponds to the English term bullying. In the
Latin languages, terms such as violenza or prepotenza (in Italian)
have broader meanings than bullying, as they include aggressive
acts which do not necessarily have repetition or imbalance of
power (Fonzi et al., 1999). Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, Liefooghe, and
in collaboration with 17 additional authors (2002) used a cartoon-
based method to study the meaning of terms similar to bullying, in
various languages; the only South-East Asian country included was
Thailand, where tum raai (thamri) was the closest in meaning to
bullying, with klang (klang) having a meaning more related to ver-
bal teasing, and nisai mai dee a more general term referring to
nasty or aggressive behavior. In Table 2 we indicate whether the lan-
guage used in the study is explicitly stated.

4.4. Denitions of bullying

Table 1
Bullying is usually dened as being an aggressive, intentional act
Population (in millions), ofcial language(s), internet penetration (percent), and per
capita GDP (dollars) in ASEAN countries. or behavior that is carried out by a group or an individual repeatedly
and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or her-
Country Population Ofcial languages Internet GDP $ ppp
self (Olweus, 1999). It is thus usually distinguished from categories
Brunei 0.41 Malay 78.0 75,222 such as aggression, or physical ghting, by the specic criteria of rep-
Cambodia 14.95 Khmer 4.4 2845 etition and power imbalance. However denitions, and the use of
Indonesia 248.65 Indonesian 22.1 9102
these criteria, vary in different studies. Some studies in Table 2 (in-
Laos 6.59 Lao 9.0 4335
Malaysia 29.12 Bahasa Melayu 60.7 22,104 cluding the GSHS surveys) give a denition of bullying, based on
Myanmar 54.58 Burmese 1.0 3989 the OBVQ (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). This provides a degree of stan-
Philippines 103.78 Filipino Spanish 32.4 6171 dardization, though there are issues about how much the denition
Singapore 5.35 English, Chinese, Malay, Tamil 75.0 75,949
is followed by respondents, or how much it corresponds to their
Thailand 67.09 Thai 30.0 13,605
Vietnam 91.52 Vietnamese 33.9 5001 own understanding of the term. Some studies use the term bullying
(or equivalent) without a denition. Some use behavior-based mea-
Sources: Internet World Stats, updated June 30, 2012. http://www.internetworldstats.com/
stats3.htm#asia.
sures, for example the Peer Relations Questionnaire (Rigby & Slee,
GDP per capita for 2012. 1993), with items such as I get called names by others; behavior-
http://www.economywatch.com. based studies avoid the issues around imposing a denition, but
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235 25

Table 2
Summary of published studies of bullying in South-East Asian countries.

Authors Sample Date of Language Denition Measures Findings

study

Cambodia
Miles, 2004 1300 aged 1215 years Probably Not stated No denition of bullying Focus groups and self-report Prevalence, how to help bullies and
2004 questionnaire (victim) victims

Indonesia
Fleming & 2694, 1216 years 200306 Not stated Olweus-type denition Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, associations with mental
Jacobsen, 2010 (GSHS data) health
Lai, Ye, & Chang, 5542 eighth graders 2003 Not stated Behavior based, 5 types Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, associations with school
2008 (TIMMS data) attitudes, learning, home conditions
Muryani & 152, 1120 years Not stated Not stated Behavior based Peer Relations Questionnaire Prevalence, associations with age and
Phongpat, 2014 gender
Akbar, Huang, & 245, grades 13 Not stated Not stated Behavior based, 49 Self-report questionnaire of Factor structure and reliability of
Anwar, 2014 items cyberbullying cyberbullying scale

Malaysia
Lai et al., 2008 5287 eighth graders 2003 Not stated Behavior based, 5 types Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, associations with school
(TIMMS data) attitudes, learning, home conditions
Yaakub, Haron, & 3816 in secondary Not stated Not stated No denition of Survey of 5 types of bullying Outcomes of a version of the
Goh, 2010 school bullying Olweus Bullying
Prevention Programme
Wan, Tan, Nik, 410 sixth graders AprilJune Bahasa No denition of Self-report questionnaire Prevalence, association with family
Tuti, Syamsul, 2006 Malaysia bullying (bully, victim) factors, academic performance
Aniza, & (Malay)
Zasmani, 2009
Wan et al., 2010 410 sixth graders, aged 2006 Bahasa No denition of Self-report questionnaire (bully, Association with ADHD
12 years Malaysia bullying victim) plus reports on ADHD
(Malay)
Yahaya, Ramli, 480 of secondary school Not stated Not stated No denition of Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, location, reasons for
Hashim, age, plus 80 teachers bullying bullying, views on prevention
Ibrahim, &
Rahman, 2009
Uba, Yaacob, & 242 aged 1316 years Not stated Not stated Behavior based PRQ, Child Depression Inventory Prevalence, associations with family
Juhari, 2010 factors and depression
Wan, Nik, Hatta, 410 aged 12 years Not stated Not stated Behavior based Self-report questionnaire Prevalence, associations with
Marhani, & (Malaysian Bullying Questionnaire), demographic aspects, academic
Shamsul, 2014 ADHD, CBC performance, ADHD symptoms,
internalizing/externalizing

Philippines
Lai et al., 2008 6840 eighth graders 2003 Not stated Behavior based, 5 types Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, associations with school
(TIMMS data) attitudes, learning, home conditions
Rudatsikira, 7338 aged around 15 2003 Not stated Behavior based (GSHS Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, association with
Mataya, Siziya, years data analysis) physical ghting
& Muula, 2008
Fleming & 7338 aged around 15 2003 Not stated Olweus-type denition Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, association with
Jacobsen, 2010 years (GSHS data) internalizing and externalizing factors
Wilson, Dunlavy, 8659 aged 1216 years 200608 Not stated Olweus-type denition Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, forms, associations with
& Berchtold, (GSHS data) age, gender, truancy, poverty
2013

Singapore
Lai et al., 2008 6009 eighth graders 2003 Not stated Behavior based, 5 types Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, associations with school
(TIMMS data) attitudes, learning, home conditions
Koh & Tan, 2008 786 primary pupils c.102006 English Behavior-based plus Self-report questionnaire (bully, Prevalence, forms, consequences,
years, 513 secondary (secondary), use of term bullying, victim) sources of support
pupils c.15 years 2007 not dened
(primary)
Ong & Elliott, 400 + 200 adults 2529 2009 English Denition given Retrospective self-report Prevalence at school, forms,
2010 years questionnaire (victim) through associations with mental well-being,
structured interview; psychometric suggestions for prevention
tests
Ang, Ong, Lim, & 809 (463 aged 913; Not stated English Power differential Self-report questionnaire (bully), Associations between narcissism,
Lim, 2010 346 aged 1216 years) Narcissistic Personality approval-of-aggression and
Questionnaire, Normative Beliefs bullying, test mediational model
about Aggression Scale
Chew, 2010 3488, 1317 years 2006 English Denition discussed Self-report questionnaire (cyber Prevalence, forms, gender, coping
victim) strategies
Ng, 2010 4000+, 716 years 2006 English Behavior based PRQ, DINO-Map Forms, location, feelings, results of
telling
Ang & Goh, 2010 396 aged 1218 years Not stated English Behavior-based, 9 Self-report questionnaire (cyberbully), Prevalence of cyberbullying,
items Basic empathy scale associations with empathy
Ang, Tan, & 336 aged c.14 years in Not stated English Behavior-based, 9 Self-report questionnaire (cyberbully), Associations between narcissism,
Mansor, 2011 Singapore, 374 aged items Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire, approval-of-aggression and
c.15 years in Malaysia Normative Beliefs about aggression cyberbullying, test mediational model
Scale

(continued on next page)

26 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235

Table 2 (continued)

Authors Sample Date of Language Denition Measures Findings

study
Singapore
Pozzoli, Ang, & 430 aged c.12 years Not stated Not stated Behavior-based Self-reported active and passive Associations of attitudes to bullying
Gini, 2012 (and 601 Italian c.12 bystanders (3 items each), attitudes and perceived peer pressure to
years) to bullying, perceived peer pressure active and passive bystanding
Lwin, Li, & Ang, 537 aged 1219 years Not stated Not stated Mainly behavior-based Self-reports on behavioral intention Associations of predictor variables
2012 to protect against online with behavioral intention to test
harassment, and four predictor model
variables
Khiat, 2012 75 (essay) + 64 Not stated Not stated Not givengrounded Reective essay; semi-structured Codings of various aspects; includes
(interview), ages not theory approach interview typologies of bullies, bystanders,
stated and victims
Ang, Huan, & 332 aged c.14 years in Not stated English Behavior-based, 9 Self-report questionnaire Associations between reactive and
Florell, 2013 Singapore, 425 aged items (cyberbully), Reactive-Proactive proactive-aggression and
c.13 years in U.S. Aggression Questionnaire cyberbullying, test moderator
model
Kwan & Skoric, 1,597 aged c.1317 2011 English Behavior-based Self-report questionnaires Associations between cyber and
2013 years (cyberbully, cybervictim; school school bully and victim rates and
bully, victim), Facebook use Facebook usage

Thailand
Laeheem, Kuning, 1440, 710 and 1013 20052006 Not stated Denition (similar to Self-report questionnaire (bully) Prevalence, location, associations
McNeil, & years that of aggression), but with entertainment, family abuse
Besag, 2008 behavior-based
Laeheem, Kuning, 1440, 710 and 1013 20052006 Not stated Denition (similar to Self-report questionnaire (bully) Prevalence, associations with school
& McNeil, 2009 years that of aggression), but type, entertainment family abuse
behavior-based
Yodprang, 244, 1219 years 2006 Not stated No denition, partly Self-report questionnaire (bully, Prevalence (bully), associations
Kuning, & behavior-based victim) with school type, family abuse
McNeil, 2009
Buttabote, 2011 102 ADHD patients, 20092010 Thai Denition as in OBQ Self-report questionnaire (OBQ) and Association of bully and victim with
1018 years Rosenberg self-esteem self-esteem
Musikaphan, 2000 students, 14 key Not stated Thai Not stated Self-report survey of cyberbullying Prevalence of being cyberbullied,
2009 informants (plus 100 behavior, and interviews attitudes
students, 12 key
informants in Japan)
Songsiri & 1200, c.1416 years Not stated Not stated Not stated Self-report survey of cyberbullying Types, direct or indirect experiences
Musikaphan, behavior
2011
Laeheem & 1592 2010 Not stated Behavior based, 28 Self-report questionnaire of risk of Discriminative power and reliability
Sungkharat, items exposure to bullying of scale
2012
Pengpid & 2758, 1315 years 2008 Not stated Olweus-type denition Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, forms, correlates
Peltzer, 2013 (GSHS data)
Laeheem, 2013a 15 each bullies, victims, Not stated Not stated Not givengrounded In-depth interviews Codings of types of bullying, where
teachers, parents in theory approach takes place, attitudes and feelings
primary school
Wilson et al., 6120 aged 1216 years 200608 Not stated Olweus-type denition Self-report questionnaire (victim) Prevalence, forms, associations with
2013 (GSHS data) age, gender, truancy, poverty
Tudkuea & 480, c.1318 years Not stated Not stated Behavior based, 24 Self-report questionnaire of Factor structure and reliability of
Laeheem, 2014 items cyberbullying cyberbullying scale
Sittichai, 2014 1183, 1417 years 2012 Not stated Olweus-type denition Self-report questionnaire (victim of Prevalence, associations with
traditional and cyber bullying) gender, province, grade, religion,
parent education
LGBT-friendly 67 focus groups, 56 20122013 Thai Behavior-based Focus groups, interviews, self-report Understandings of bullying,
Thailand?, interviews, 2070 survey questionnaire prevalence based on LGBT, forms,
2014 aged 1320. bystanders, coping, impact

Vietnam
Horton, 2011, 906 aged 11 to 15 years 20072008 Vietnamese No denition given Self-report questionnaire (bully, Prevalence, nature of bat nat,
2012 victim), interviews, participant disciplinary power and role of
observation teachers

run the risk of assessing the broader category of aggression than of
bullying (Furlong, Sharkey, Felix, Tanigawa, & Green, 2010; Ybarra,
Boyd, Korchmaros, & Oppenheim, 2012). In Table 2 we indicate
whether a denition or behavior based approach was used.
Particular denitional issues arise for cyberbullying. One denition
which keeps the standard criteria is that cyberbullying is an aggressive,
intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using mobile phones
or the internet, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot
easily defend him or herself (Smith et al., 2008). There is debate
about whether it is appropriate to just carry over the denition in this
way. Regarding the repetition criterion, a single perpetrator act may
be viewed or passed on many times by others; since this could often
be foreseen by the perpetrator, it might be legitimate to count a single
perpetrator act as cyberbullying. Regarding the imbalance of power cri-
terion, the usual signs of this for traditional bullying (physical strength,
social status, or numbers of bullies) do not so obviously apply, especially
if the perpetrator withholds their identity; however anonymity in itself
may indicate an imbalance of powerthe perpetrator knows the victim,
but not vice versa; and if there is not anonymity and the victim does know
who the perpetrator is, then the traditional criteria may still be relevant
(Menesini et al., 2012). Some researchers prefer a behavior based
approach to avoid these denitional controversies; nevertheless much
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235 27

research has used the term cyberbullying. Prevalence rates can vary wide-
ly depending on the denitional approach used in cyberbullying (Smith,
2012).
4.5. Measures used
Although self-report surveys have been most commonly used to
study bullying, other common quantitative methods include question-
naires to teachers or parents, and peer nominations. Less frequently,
more qualitative or ethnographic approaches have been used, such as
interviews, focus groups, and participant or non-participant observa-
tion. In Table 2 we outline the main measures used to study bullying,
and measures for other important variables associated with bullying.
4.6. Main ndings
The main types of ndings are summarized in Table 2, with details in
the text below. We start with two comparative data sets; this is followed
by a review of studies carried out by country; here we group countries
in terms of the volume of research carried out.
5. Two comparative data sets
5.1. Comparative data from GSHS (Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand,
Philippines, Malaysia)
The Global School Health Survey (GSHS), as part of a large and
regular inventory on health-related behaviors, provides data on two
questions about being a victim of bullying (frequency, forms) from a
wide range of countries. An Olweus-type denition is given rst (men-
tioning repetition and imbalance of power as criteria for bullying), then
the two questions, referring to the past 30 days, and 7 response options
for forms of bullying. Table 3 gives a summary of the ndings (from the
GSHS website) for Indonesia (2007), Myanmar (2007), Thailand (2008),
and the Philippines (2003, 2007). There is also summary data only from
the Philippines (2011), and also for Malaysia (2012), for the question on
how many days you were bullied during the past 30 days; this is men-
tioned under the country headings.
Regarding frequency, Table 3 shows this to be clearly substantially
higher in Indonesia and then the Philippines, than in Myanmar, or
Thailand. Regarding forms, there is some country variation in ranking.
Even bearing in mind overall frequency of being bullied, being made
fun of because of how my body or face looks is high in Indonesia,
whereas physical bullying is relatively low. In Myanmar, sexual bullying
is particularly low, but being bullied because of religion is relatively
high. Exclusion is low in Thailand. A surprisingly high proportion
of Indonesian victims (one-fth) say it was in other ways. The
Philippines data on forms varies considerably between 2003 and 2007.
However all the data sets have a high proportion (13% or more) of miss-
ing responses, especially high for Philippines 2007 (21%), which may
indicate some problems in data collection or comprehension.
GSHS data from 2003 to 2006 was used by Fleming and Jacobsen
(2010) in an analysis of bulling rates in 19 countries. The only South-
East Asian country included was the Philippines, for which they found
associations of victim rates with younger age, feeling sad/hopeless, suf-
fering from loneliness and insomnia, having suicidal ideation, and also
smoking, drinking alcohol and using drugs. The 2003 Philippines data
was also analyzed further by Rudatsikira et al. (2008). Being a victim
of bullying was found to be related to involvement in physical ghting.
There were no gender differences in either variable. Summary GSHS
data for the Philippines is also available for 2011, for the percentage of
students who were bullied on one or more days during the past
30 days. This was 47.7% (46.9 males, 48.4 females).
GSHS data from 2006 to 2008 was used by Wilson et al. (2013) in an
analysis of bullying rates in 15 countries, including Philippines and
Thailand. They found associations of victim rates (over all 15 countries)
with male gender, often being hungry, and rates of truancy from school.
Pengpid and Peltzer (2013) used the 2008 data from Thailand, and
found victim rates higher in males, and associated with physical ght-
ing, psychosocial distress, being physically inactive (boys only), truancy
(boys only), and lack of parental bonding (girls only).
5.2. Comparative data from TIMMS (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand)
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMMS) survey began in 1995 and is assessed every 4 years, with
some 50006000 eighth grade students in each country. Primarily
about mathematics achievement, it also includes a section on school
safety, including questions on experiences of being bullied in the past
month. No denition of bullying is given, so the questions may be tap-
ping some aggressive acts as well as bullying more strictly dened,
yielding relatively large prevalence rates.
The 2003 questionnaire asked if any of ve forms of bullying behav-
ior had happened during the last month. Lai et al. (2008) reported an
analysis of this data for 10 countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia,

Table 3
Comparative results from GSHS surveys in Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and Philippines. Percentages of pupils responding, by country.

Indonesia Myanmar Thailand Philippines Philippines

Year of survey 2007 2007 2008 2003 2007

Total sample N = 2694 N = 2438 N = 2386 N = 6268 N = 4496

Missing data N = 422 N = 368 N = 381 N = 1070 N = 1161

During the past 30 days, on how many days were you bullied?
0 days 50.3 79.3 72.2 64.3 54.4
1 or 2 days 29.6 15.7 17.5 23.5 24.3
3 to 5 days 9.9 2.8 4.9 7.8 9.7
6 to 9 days 4.4 1.3 2.5 2.2 3.9
10+ days 5.8 1.0 2.9 2.1 7.7
During the past 30 days, how were you bullied most often?
I was hit, kicked, pushed, shoved around, or locked indoors 4.3 5.3 6.3 10.0 6.2
I was made fun of because of how my body or face looks 8.7 2.2 3.1 1.8 5.5
I was made fun of with sexual jokes, comments, or gestures 4.9 0.5 6.9 2.9 8.1
I was made fun of because of my race or color 6.0 3.9 2.1 3.8 4.1
I was left out of activities on purpose or completely ignored 4.5 1.7 0.7 2.8 5.6
I was made fun of because of my religion 0.7 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.7
I was bullied in some other way 20.6 4.9 7.9 13.1 15.0

10+ days sums 1019 days, 2029 days, and all 30 days, in the original data sets.
source: www.who.int/chp/gshs/factsheets/en/index.html.
28 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
Philippines and Singapore. Being made fun of/called names was the
most frequent form in all countries, followed by being hit or hurt
(Indonesia), having things stolen (Malaysia, Singapore), made to do
things they didn't want to do (Philippines), and being left out of activi-
ties (usually less frequent). Prevalence rates for all ve behaviors were
noticeably higher in the Philippines (range 3059%) than Singapore
(range 1237%), Indonesia (range 1336%) or Malaysia (range 730%).
Males generally experienced such behaviors more than females (with
the exception of left out in Singapore). Risk factors included immigrant
status in Indonesia and Philippines; and having many books in the
home, in Indonesia. Protective factors included higher parental educa-
tion in the Philippines, and having learning tools (e.g. computers) at
home, in Singapore and Malaysia. Generally, experiencing these
behaviors was associated with more negative attitudes to school, and
there were signicant but small negative correlations with academic
achievement.
The 2011 data set included six types of behavior (adding a catego-
ry of someone spread lies about me). Mullis, Martin, Foy, and Arora
(2012) provide prevalence tables for both 4th grade and 8th grade
students, but the 2011 data is only available for Singapore and
Thailand of the South-East Asian countries. The prevalence data for
these two countries is shown in Table 4, compared to the interna-
tional average (for 50 countries at 4th grade, 42 countries at 8th
grade). Prevalence is slightly higher in Singapore but much higher
in Thailand than the international average; and is generally less for
older students.
6. Research on bullying by country
6.1. Countries with no local research: Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Myanmar
No studies were located in Brunei Darussalam, or Lao PDR. Apart
from the comparative data available from GSHS (2007), we did not
nd any publications on bullying in Myanmar.
6.2. Countries with one extended report: Cambodia and Vietnam
6.2.1. Cambodia
Miles (2004) compiled a report on violence against and by children
in Cambodia, which included a section on bullying. Some focus group
research was followed by a survey of pupils drawn from 130 schools
(10 from each school) across all the provinces of Cambodia. Some 57%
said that they had heard of children being bullied by other children at
school, and around 73% said they had seen other children teased or
mistreated. Altogether 37% (slightly more boys than girls) said they
had ever been bullied by other children because they were different.
Nearly half described it as an extremely serious issue. Poverty was
seen as a main reason for being bullied (by 40%), followed by disability
(25%), with much less frequent choice of gender (8%), ethnicity (6%) or
religious belief (5%). When asked how children who have been bullied
can be helped, by far the most frequent choice was to educate the bullies
Table 4
Comparative results from TIMMS 2011 survey in Singapore and Thailand compare to av-
erage from all countries surveyed. Percentages of pupils responding for perceptions of be-
ing bullied at school.
Almost never Bullied about Bullied about
bullied monthly weekly
4th grade
Singapore 39 38 23
Thailand 17 35 48
International average 48 32 20
8th grade
Singapore 52 36 12
Thailand 30 43 27
International average 59 29 12
(by 60%), followed by emotional support to the bullied child (12%),
dealing with bullies through local authorities (11%), and bullying pre-
vention/protection (10%). When asked how the bullies can be helped,
the most frequent choice was again to educate/advise them not to
harm others (72%), followed by protecting other children from harm
(20%).
6.2.2. Vietnam
Horton (2011, 2012) published a doctoral thesis and a book based on
the topic of bullying in Vietnamese schools. This was based on ethno-
graphic eld work in two lower secondary schools in Haiphong.
Although primarily using participant observation and group and indi-
vidual interviews with students and teachers, some questionnaire sur-
vey data from pupils in grades 6 to 9 is reported. This data (Horton,
2011, pp.7678) asked about experiences of bat nat, a Vietnamese
word close to bullying. Taking a frequency criterion of more than occa-
sionally, then 11.9% of boys and 6.8% of girls reported being victims of
bat nat, and 10.0% of boys and 5.9% of girls were perpetrators. Besides
the gender differences, victim rates increased with age from 6th grade
to 9th grade; perpetrator rates also increased with age for boys, but
peaked in 7th grade for girls.
Horton's ethnographic approach also gives much insight into the na-
ture of bat nat, which he denes as being made to do something you
would not otherwise do. This naturally leads to a discussion of power re-
lationships, and the author adopts a Foucauldian approach to power;
power is not held but is exercised in strategic situations. For example
one child may make another child go to the canteen to get them a
snack; this means the rst child (bully) saves time and avoids possible
attacks in an unsupervised canteen setting. This in turn leads Horton
to question whether a bully is necessarily intentionally wishing to
hurt the victim, rather than responding to the institutional power struc-
ture in the school. He similarly examines the actions of teachers, ways in
which pupils may bully teachers and teachers may bully pupils, and
interprets this in relation to power relations within the immediate con-
text of the school and in the wider society.
6.3. Countries with limited local research: Indonesia, Philippines
6.3.1. Indonesia
As noted above, comparative data for Indonesia is available from
GSHS, and TIMMS (Lai et al., 2008). Muryani and Phongpat (2014) car-
ried out a survey in Jakarta, and reported prevalence of bullying as 75.7%
and victim as 96.1%; these extraordinarily high gures appear to be be-
cause of a very lenient criterion used for dening bullying, from the PRQ.
Contrary to most international ndings, bully rates were lowest in mid-
adolescence, and there was no gender difference.
Akbar et al. (2014) report on the development of a cyberbullying
scale, testing it on students at a private school in Aceh province. The
scale was based on Willard (2007) with seven subscales of aming, ha-
rassment, denigration, impersonation, outing & trickery, exclusion, and
cyberstalking. Of an initial 49 items, 26 were retained to nalize an in-
strument with satisfactory factor loadings and internal reliability.
Rahayu (2012) (main article in Indonesian) reports on a survey on
cyberbullying in secondary schools in three provinces, but with very lit-
tle detail on ndings in the English abstract. Not included in Table 2 is a
conference report by Margono, Yi, and Raikundalia (2014), which collat-
ed words used for bullying in Indonesian, from an analysis of Indonesian
Twitter feeds.
6.3.2. Philippines
As noted above, comparative data is available for the Philippines
from GSHS (Fleming & Jacobsen, 2010; Rudatsikira et al., 2008; Wilson
et al., 2013) and TIMMS (Lai et al., 2008).
Not included in Table 2 is a discussion article by Ancho and Park
(2013) on the importance of tackling school violence, including bullying
and cyberbullying; and a conference report by Gonzales (2014) which
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
summarizes views on cyberbullying from eight key professional
informants.
6.4. Countries with more extensive local research: Malaysia, Singapore,
Thailand
6.4.1. Malaysia
The GSHS 2012 survey reports summary data for Malaysia, for the
percentage of students who were bullied on one or more days during
the past 30 days. This was 20.9% for 1315 year olds (males 24.0, fe-
males 17.8), and 12.5% for 1617 year olds (males 12.9, females 12.0).
Apart from this, the comparative survey with TIMMS data by Lai et al.
(2008), and the inclusion of a Malaysian sample in a Singapore-based
study by Ang et al. (2011), there are several specically Malaysian
studies.
Nora Yaakub and colleagues carried out some surveys of bullying in
elementary school children, and in secondary school children, which are
not published but are available through a website (mahdzan.com/pa-
pers/bully/bully.asp) or from the rst author. Building on these surveys,
Yaakub et al. (2010) describe ndings from an intervention study,
funded by UNICEF. They worked with three experimental and three
control schools, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur; in each set
of three, one was a girls school, one a boys school, and one was co-
educational. A pre and post 24-item survey asked about ve types of
bullying: physical, verbal, relational, signal (staring, jutting out tongue),
and extortion. In the experimental schools, rates of bullying decreased
signicantly in the girls school; but it increased in the other two, as it
did in the control schools. Only brief details are given in the published
report, but the authors suggest that the success in the girls school was
because of better implementation of the program. A Manual for teachers
in Malay language was also produced as a result of this program
(Yaakub, Haron, & Jusoh, 2009).
In three related studies, Wan and colleagues (2009, 2010, 2014)
gave the Malaysian Bullying Questionnaire (developed by Yaakub and
colleagues) to pupils from 7 primary schools in the Federal Territory
of Kuala Lumpur. Pupils rated themselves on a 4-point frequency
scale, with bully, victim or bully-victim dened in terms of bullying
others or being bullied, or both, three or more times during the last 4
weeks. By this denition, prevalence rates were bully 2.4%, victim
41.2%, and bully-victim 17.6%. More boys than girls were involved as
bullies and bully-victims. As there were only 10 children counted as
bullies, the statistical associations with family variables and academic
performance may not be reliable; and the non-involved category was
not used as a comparison. In the second report, on the same sample,
the data were additionally analyzed in relation to self, teacher and par-
ent reports of Attention-Decit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symp-
toms. ADHD symptoms were self-reported more by bullies and bully-
victims, but parent-reported more for victims, with no signicant asso-
ciations for teacher reports. In the third report, apparently on the same
sample, associations were reported with demographic aspects (not sig-
nicant), academic achievement (lowest in bully-victims), and ADHD
(mixed ndings depending on informant); conduct problems were
highest, and internalizing symptoms lowest, in those involved in bully-
ing others.
Yahaya et al. (2009) investigated the prevalence and types of being
bullied at 8 secondary schools in Batu Pahat, Johor, using an adaptation
of questionnaires such as the PRQ. Taking a criterion of once or twice a
month or more, 10.8% of students reported they had been bullied in
school this year. Students described verbal bullying as more frequent
than physical bullying. It is stated in the Abstract (although not in the
main text) that there was no signicant difference in prevalence be-
tween male and female students. Being bullied was most frequent in
the classroom, followed by recess time, on the way from school, and
then on the way to school. Students were also asked for their percep-
tions of reasons for the bullying: the most frequent responses were be-
cause they hurt my feelings and to revenge. They also gave views on
29
coping strategies, from which it appears that pupils see a role for both
teachers and students in stopping bullying. There were some different
perceptions about the prevalence of bullying between students and
teachers; teachers reported the bullying prevalence rate at a lower
level, than students. However teachers agreed with students in seeing
verbal abuse as the most common type, and the classroom as the most
common location, and they too saw both teachers and students as hav-
ing important roles in prevention. Teacher's views on intervention strat-
egies were also obtained, with discipline school board and updating
school regulations getting the highest rating.
Uba (2009) carried out a Master's thesis on the relationship between
bullying, victimization, prosocial behavior and depression among teen-
agers in Selangor. The main ndings are published in Uba et al. (2010).
Teenagers from 5 secondary schools in Selangor were given the PRQ to
assess bullying, victimization and pro-social behavior, and the Children
Depression Inventory to measure depression. Pupils were dichotomized
into bully or non-bully groups, which constituted 49.2% and 50.8% re-
spectively, probably using a lenient criterion including students who
carried out one or two aggressive behaviors once in a while. The main
ndings were a higher rate of bullying in males than females, no gen-
der differences in depression, but a correlation of around 0.3 between
bully scores and depression. The longer report in the thesis (Uba,
2009) also reports a correlation of around 0.4 between victim scores
and depression, with victimization being the only unique predictor of
depression (p.xvii). Pro-social behavior had a positive correlation
with victimization only.
In summary, there are several studies on prevalence (but using
different instruments), and correlates including ADHD, one study on
coping strategies, and one on an intervention procedure.
6.4.2. Singapore
Apart from the comparative data reported by Lai et al. (2008), there
are a number of studies based in Singapore.
Koh and Tan (2008), in a report to the Singapore Children's Society,
carried out a survey of pupils of primary and secondary school age; they
recruited a random stratied sample, and pupils were interviewed
(given the questionnaire) at home. Their comprehensive report repro-
duces the questionnaires used, which asked about 15 forms of bullying
behaviors in primary, and 17 in secondary, and how often these had
been experienced in the last year. Overall 21% of primary pupils and
25% of secondary pupils were victims of at least one form of bullying;
in primary school only, the rate was higher in boys than girls. For
doing these things to others (bullying), the rates were 5% in primary
and 10% in secondary (more boys in both sectors). Of the forms of bul-
lying, verbal was most frequent, followed by relational items, then
physical forms; cyberbullying was least frequent. When asked what
they did or how they felt after being bullied, the most common response
was feeling angry, followed by feeling sad; nearly one-third also
mentioned retaliating against the bully; other fairly common responses
included wanting to be alone, loss of appetite, problems in concentra-
tion at school, or sleeping at night. When asked if they told anyone,
and if this helped, in primary schools 60% told parents, 35% told no-
one, 31% told teachers, and 8% told peers; teachers were rated most ef-
fective. In secondary schools, 81% told peers, 46% told teachers, 40% told
parents, 17% told no-one; teachers were rated more effective than par-
ents or peers, but less so than in primary school.
Ong and Elliott (2010), in another report to the Singapore Children's
Society, used a retrospective questionnaire with young adults. Bullying
was dened as repeated and intentional attempts by others to hurt
you or to cause distress to your daily life. When asked if they had
been bullied during their primary or secondary school days, one-
quarter of an initial random stratied sample of 400 said yes (with no
gender difference). A further 200 bullied respondents were then
added to the sample to equate bullied and non-bullied groups. Verbal
and relational bullying was recalled most often, followed by physical
bullying. There was no gender difference overall in being a victim, but
30 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
males were higher in recollections of being physically bullied or threat-
ened. Some 38% of bullied respondents said they had sought help, most
often from school and family, then peers; some 62% said that this help
had made things better, and about 10% that it made things worse. Seek-
ing help was also the most frequently suggested way of dealing with
bullying, followed by having friends around, action by the school or
teachers, avoiding/ignoring, education, standing up to the bully. How-
ever in terms of how they had dealt with an incident successfully,
avoiding/ignoring was the most frequent response. Compared to non-
bullied respondents, those who had been bullied scored lower on tests
of self-esteem and well-being and higher on depression.
A book edited by Ng and Rigby (2010) contains a range of chapters on
bullying experiences and anti-bullying methods, with two primarily em-
pirical chapters. As well as the PRQ, Ng (2010) used a DINO-Map as a pic-
torial way of assessing younger children's experiences of being bullied,
and how they felt about it. As well as the playground and classroom, a
common venue for bullying was found to be the canteen. Name calling
and being teased and laughed at were the most common forms, followed
by physical forms. A range of negative emotions were felt by victims, in-
cluding anger as well as sadness and a feeling of unfairness. For a majority
of children who told someone about it, things got better, although only a
minority of teachers were seen as usually interested in trying to stop it.
Chew (2010), working in eight secondary schools, reported that 75%
had never been cyberbullied, 16% occasionally, 5% fairly often and 4%
very often. Of eight forms, SMS and Instant Messaging were most fre-
quent. Rates of being cyberbullied were slightly higher at home than
at school. Rates were higher for girls overall, and especially for rumor
spreading and being teased, with boys higher for being called names.
Victims were most likely to tell friends (60%), mother (39%) or father
(27%) with teachers least (24%); while 37% said they had tried to
cyber bully back.
A series of studies by Ang and Goh (2010), Ang et al. (2010, 2011,
2013), Lwin et al. (2012) and Pozzoli et al. (2012), published in interna-
tional journals, are directed not so much toward prevalence and nature
of bullying, but to testing out various models which might predict the
relationship between individual psychological characteristics, and
roles in bullying or as a bystander. Ang et al. (2010) worked with pupils
from one elementary and one middle school. They used a 7-item
behavior-based bullying questionnaire to measure bullying others; the
power difference between perpetrator and victim was explained prior
to administration. Prevalence rates are not reported; the researchers
were interested in testing mediational and moderating models between
the three variables of narcissistic exploitativeness, normative beliefs
about aggression, and bullying. All three variables correlated positively,
and support was found for approval-of-aggression beliefs moderating
the relationship between narcissistic exploitativeness and bullying.
Ang and Goh (2010) worked with adolescents from one middle
school and one high school, and examined the association between af-
fective empathy, cognitive empathy, and gender on cyberbullying
among adolescents. A 9-item cyberbullying behavior scale was used,
validated using EFA and CFA, with a 5-point frequency scale. Frequent
cyberbullying of others (weekly or more over the last year) was report-
ed by 3.7% of boys and 0.9% girls; infrequent cyberbullying, which could
be once or more this year but less than weekly, was reported by another
19.9% of boys and 14.2% of girls. As main effects, both low cognitive em-
pathy and low affective empathy predicted cyberbullying; and this was
clearly so for boys with no interaction between the two kinds of empa-
thy. However for girls, the level of cognitive empathy had no effect if
they had high affective empathy.
Ang et al. (2011) used the cyberbullying questionnaire of Ang and
Goh (2010) and the design of Ang et al. (2010) with samples of students
from Singapore and Malaysia; the number of schools is not reported.
Prevalence rates are not reported, although the cyberbullying score was
higher in Malaysia than Singapore. The three variables of narcissistic
exploitativeness, normative beliefs about aggression, and cyberbullying
correlated positively, and support was found for approval-of-aggression
beliefs moderating the relationship between narcissistic exploitativeness
and bullying; these ndings held separately for both samples.
Pozzoli et al. (2012) examined how individual attitudes to bullying,
and perceived peer pressure for intervention against bullying, related to
self-reported defending behavior. The same procedure was carried out
with samples of primary and middle school pupils in Singapore, and
Italy; the number of schools is not reported. Both individual attitudes
and peer pressure predicted active and passive bystanding in predicted
directions; however perceived peer pressure had a stronger inuence in
Singapore (seen as a more collectivist culture), whereas individual atti-
tudes had less inuence than in Italy (seen as a more individualistic
culture).
Lwin et al. (2012) used Protection Motivation Theory as a model for
looking at predictors of behavioral intention to protect against online
harassment. Their sample was drawn from four high schools. Partici-
pants were briefed on what online harassment constitutes prior to be-
ginning the surveys (p.36). Incidental to the main aims of the article,
53% of the sample reported being a victim of online harassment at
least once (and of these victims, 23% had experienced it more than
once). Predictor variables measured were perceived severity, suscepti-
bility, response efcacy, and self efcacy. These were found to correlate
with behavioral intention, with the exception of susceptibility. Self ef-
cacy had a stronger effect for younger adolescents, and high self efcacy
was more important for behavioral intention in males than females.
Ang et al. (2011) used the cyberbullying questionnaire of Ang and
Goh (2010) together with a ReactiveProactive aggression question-
naire, comparing samples in Singapore and the USA. Prevalence rates
of cyberbullying were 17.9% in the US sample and 16.4% in Singapore;
rates were signicantly correlated with both types of aggression, in
both countries; regression analyses showed this to be driven by proac-
tive aggression. Nationality and gender were not found to be modera-
tors of the relationship.
Kwan and Skoric (2013) worked in two secondary schools, examin-
ing cyberbullying occurring on Facebook, and using scales adapted from
North American studies, plus an ofine bullying scale adapted from Ng
(2010); 59.4% of Facebook users reported experiencing at least one
form of bullying in the last year (most common was receiving nasty
messages), and 56.9% of engaging in at least one form (most commonly
blocking someone); intensity of Facebook use was a signicant predic-
tor of victimization, and risky Facebook use of bullying. Boys were
more involved as bullies or victims, and there were signicant associa-
tions between Facebook bullying and school bullying.
Khiat (2012) reported a more qualitative study, with second and
third year students at one polytechnic. Some were asked to write an
essay reecting on any event related to bullying during their time at
the polytechnic; based on analysis of this, a semi-structured interview
was carried out with further students. Grounded theory was used to
analyze the data. Findings are discussed in terms of the contexts for bul-
lying, aims of bullying, bullying tactics (this includes a typology of
bullies as Manipulating, Entertaining, Reprising, Excluding), bystanders
(typology of tutor bystanders as Apathetic, Focussed or Intervening;
pupil bystanders as Reassured, Guilty, Collaborating and Hindering), re-
actions toward bullying (typology of victims as Indifferent, Resigned,
and Proactive), and ways to reduce bullying.
In summary, there is a quite extensive series of studies in Singapore,
covering prevalence, correlates, coping strategies including narcissism,
normative beliefs, empathy, and self efcacy, and a qualitative study.
Six studies included cyberbullying.
6.4.3. Thailand
Apart from the comparative data from GSHS reported by Pengpid
and Peltzer (2013) and Wilson et al. (2013), and the TIMMS data from
2011 (see Table 4), there are several publications on bullying in
Thailand. A survey by Tapanya (2006) is available only in Thai and is
thus not in Table 2. Pupils from grades 4 to 9 were given the OBVQ.
For all forms of bullying, boys were bullied more than girls, especially
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
in the lower grades (grades 4 or 5). Most of the victims reported the
bully to their friends (56%) followed by their parents (37%), teachers
(32%), and siblings (29%).
Laeheem et al. (2008) reported on bullying in 5 public and 2 private
primary schools (one Islamic, one Chinese) in the Pattani district of
southern Thailand. The researchers dened bullying as a person's ac-
tions to cause physical or psychological harm on another person
(p.180), so measuring aggression rather than bullying. Pupils were
asked if they had ever harmed someone or hurt their feelings, in 16 dif-
ferent ways (physical and verbal, but not including cyber). Students
who said yes to at least 2 out of the 16 categories were labeled as
bullies. Based on this criterion, 32.9% of students reported that they
had (ever) bullied other children. The classroom was the most frequent
location. Bullying others was signicantly associated with being older,
with having seen family physical abuse between parents, and with pref-
erence for action (rather than comedy or mystery) cartoons. A report by
Laeheem et al. (2009), appears to be based on the same sample of stu-
dents and data set. A different (but not completely specied) dichoto-
mizing of students into bullied others and not bullied others groups
was carried out, with the bullied others group now constituting
20.9% of the sample. Signicant risk factors now were in public school
(rather than private), being male, non-Muslim (rather than Muslim),
11 years or older (rather than 8 to 10 years), had witnessed parental
physical abuse, and preference for action (to comedy or mystery)
cartoons.
Yodprang et al. (2009) reported on physical bullying among lower
secondary school students in Pattani province. The procedure appears
similar to the study on primary school students; however it only
asked about ve types of physically aggressive behavior, but as both
perpetrator and victim, on a yes/no basis. Questions referred to behavior
during both the preceding six months and during the previous month.
On these criteria, the overall prevalence of physical bullying of others
was reported as 18.5% (both during the last six months and the last
month). Physically bullying others was not signicantly associated
with gender, but was associated with being older, Thai compared to
Malay or Chinese, urban school rather than rural, and witnessing phys-
ical violence between parents.
Buttabote (2011) (only abstract available in English), reported on
the relationship between bullying roles and self-esteem in ADHD pa-
tients, being treated at the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Outpatient
Unit of Ramathibodi Hospital, using a Thai version of the OBVQ and the
Rosenberg self-esteem scale. The analysis distinguished four roles:
bully-only, victim-only, bully-victim, and not involved. The proportion
of ADHD patients who exhibited or were victims of some bullying
behaviors was 52.9%, most of them being in the bully-victim group.
Victims of bullying most frequently reported being made fun of or
teased in a hurtful way, while those who bullied others most frequently
reported behaviors of hitting, kicking, pushing, and placing someone
under arrest. The self-esteem scores for the victim-only group and
bully-victim groups were statistically signicantly lower than for the
not involved group.
Laeheem and Sungkharat (only abstract available in English) gave a
screening inventory to students at 10 Islamic schools in Songkhla prov-
ince. The properties of the instrument were reported. Laeheem (2013a)
gathered qualitative data at 15 Islamic private schools. Examples are
given of physical, verbal, and social bullying, and of sites such as the
classroom, toilets, canteen, and school yard. Attitudes to and feelings
about bullying are also described.
Four studies have produced evidence regarding cyberbullying in
Thailand. Musikaphan (2009), in a university report (only abstract
available in English), provided comparative data on cyberbullying in
Thailand, and Japan. Data collection was carried out in Thailand with
2,000 students for a quantitative study, and 14 key informants for
qualitative purposes; and in Japan with 100 students for quantitative
study and 12 key informants for qualitative purposes. From the quanti-
tative surveys, it was found that nearly 59% of respondents had been
31
cyberbullied more than once per month, while in Japan, reported
cases of cyber bullying were very low in frequency, with more than
half of respondents said that they have never faced or got information
about cyber-bullying. In terms of attitudes toward cyberbullying, in
Thailand, 60% of students believed that cyberbullying was negatively
avoidable behavior which should be prohibited, but some 35% believed
that cyberbullying might be an acceptable behavior; whereas in Japan,
68% thought that it was bad behavior.
Songsiri and Musikaphan (2011) reported ndings from a survey of
pupils from 21 secondary schools in Bangkok. Attitudes to cyberbullying
were described as negative, or mixed. Seven types of cyberbullying
were reported, of which electronic messages with angry and vulgar lan-
guage, and repeatedly sending nasty, mean and insulting messages,
were the most frequent. The frequency measures are difcult to inter-
pret, as they included both experiencing these forms oneself, or hearing
about it occurring to one's friends. Duration of internet use and aspects
of family relationships (exposure to violence; family income) were
found to relate to the cyberbullying measure, but no details of these
ndings are presented. This team has also produced manuscripts
written only in Thai (Musikphan, Yongchin, & Chancharoen, 2011;
Pokpong & Musikphan, 2010).
Tudkuea and Laeheem (2014) worked with young people in
Songkhla province to devise a 24-item inventory on cyberbullying, cov-
ering 5 forms. Conrmatory factor analysis supported the use of this
instrument.
Sittichai (2014) sampled students from 12 secondary schools in
three southern provinces using an adaptation of a U.K. questionnaire.
Using either strict or lenient frequency criteria, prevalence for tradition-
al victimization was 6.0% and 16.0% respectively, and 3.7% and 14.9% for
cyber victimization. About half of cyber victims were also traditional
victims. Victim status was associated with being male (both kinds),
and with higher parental education (only for lenient criterion cyber
victims).
A report from Mahidol University (LGBT-friendly Thailand?, 2014)
used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods with stu-
dents at 3 secondary schools in each of 5 provinces. The report focuses
on the experiences of LGBT students; overall, 55.&% of self-identied
LGBT students reported being bullied within the last month because
they were LGBT, with physical, verbal, social and sexual abuse all
being common. Despite a range of negative outcomes from such victim-
ization, only about one-third used an active coping strategy. A lack of
relevant anti-bullying policies in schools, both generally and for LGBT
students specically, was identied.
Not included in Table 2 is a report by Laeheem (2013b) which dis-
cusses group study activities from an Islamic perspective, or Hallakah,
as a way to solve problems of bullying behaviors.
In summary, there are a number of studies on prevalence (but some
measuring aggression rather than bullying), and correlates including
self-esteem and ADHD, and four studies on cyberbullying.
7. Discussion
We rst note that the distribution by country of studies on bullying
in ASEAN countries is patchy: Singapore has the most extensive range of
studies, followed by Thailand and Malaysia. In the other countries there
is either one extensive report (Cambodia, Vietnam), data mainly or sole-
ly from HBSC and/or TIMMS (Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines) or no
data whatsoever (Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR). The most research has
been done in the countries with highest GDP per capita (Table 1),
which are likely to support a greater research base. The exception to
this generalization is Brunei Darussalam, which is by far the smallest
country of the ten. Given the size of the country and GDP ranking 5th
in the list (Table 1), the lack of research in Indonesia is disappointing.
Secondly, the sources reviewed are variable. Some are articles
published in international refereed journals. Others are national journal
articles, perhaps with less intensive peer review; and others are theses
32 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
or reports for organizations or charitable bodies. We have indicated the
status of the sources in the text.
These studies are starting to make a valuable contribution, and any
critical remarks below are made with the aim of constructively helping
research to progress further in an effective way, both locally and in an
international comparative perspective.
7.1. Limitations of reporting
Of the 38 independent studies in Table 2, it can be seen that 17, or
nearly half, do not give the date of data collection. This is also quite a
common feature in reports of bullying internationally, especially by psy-
chologists, but it is regrettable (Hofstede et al., 2010; Smith, 2010).
There are short-term historical changes in the denition of bullying
(for example incorporation of indirect forms in the 1990s), and also in
behavior (for example the development of cyberbullying in the
2000s). Furthermore if school-based intervention work started to
make an impact in these countries, as it has in many Western countries
(Krn et al., 2011; Rigby & Smith, 2011), then prevalence rates in par-
ticular will exhibit historical trends. As an example of how changing
trends in cyberbullying may affect interpretation of ndings, Ang and
Goh (2010) found much less cyberbullying in girls than boys, but it is
unfortunate that the date of the study is not given, as some studies sug-
gest a greater involvement of girls in cyberbullying in the last few years
as social networking sites become more popular (Smith, 2014). It
should be noted that this omission of date of data collection is also
found in many western studies (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Troop-Gordon,
2010).
Also of the 38 independent studies in Table 2, 25, or nearly two-
thirds, do not specify the language used to gather data (by question-
naires or interview). Even if we can guess the language, we do not
know what terms were used for bullying (or related concepts), in
denition-based studies. When questions are asked about bullying, the
corresponding term in the language needs to be specied and it's equiv-
alence to bullying discussed. With the exception of 3 terms in Thai men-
tioned in the introduction, no proper study has been made of the
equivalence of such terms, for example using the cartoon test (Smith
et al., 2002). In Malay the word buli is often used informally, but it
would be important to know if this was the term used in a research
study, and how it was understood. As an example, Yahaya et al. (2009,
p.651) asked questions such as Do you being bully in school this
year?, but we do not know how bully was translated in such items. Ex-
ceptions to this linguistic blindness are Horton (2011), who provides a
lexicon of bullying-related words in Vietnamese, and discusses the
meaning of bat nat as the nearest equivalent to bullying, but with a
meaning closer to making others do things they would not otherwise
wish to do; and the report on LGBT bullying in Thailand (2014).
If no term for bullying is used directly, as is the case in behavior-
based measurement studies, then it needs to be very clear that the
distinguishing criteria of repetition and imbalance of power are
being taken account of. If they are not, then it is questionable that bul-
lying is being measured. Some studies have a lax criterion for
bullyingin fact some are clearly measuring aggressive behaviors
and not bullying, thus leading to high prevalence gures. As noted, def-
initional issues are more complicated for cyberbullying.
7.2. Prevalence of bullying
Bullying-like behaviors are not infrequent in the eight countries for
which there is some prevalence data. The sample sizes of studies are
generally in the hundreds or more, and most of the studies are on pupils
of secondary school age.
By the HBSC standards for Western countries (c.10% for bullying
others, and 11% for being bullied; Currie et al., 2012), some of the
reports in Table 2 give broadly comparable prevalence rates; for
example Yahaya et al. (2009) in Malaysia. Other reports give much
higher prevalence rates, for example by Wan et al. (2009) in Malaysia.
However before seeking cultural or educational variables to explain os-
tensibly higher prevalence rates, we need to consider methodological is-
sues. In the case of Wan et al. (2009) we do not know what term was
used for bully or victim, in Malay language, or how it was dened. In
Thailand, all the studies have uncertainty related to what Thai
word(s) were used for bullying, but the GSHS data (Table 3) suggest a
prevalence broadly in line with Western gures; however Laeheem
et al.'s (2008, 2009) estimates of prevalence are much higher; this is prob-
ably both because of a long time referent period (have you ever ), but
also because their denition describes aggressive behaviors generally
rather than bullying specically. Similarly, Yodprang et al.'s (2009) high
prevalence rate of bullying others may be inated as a measure of bullying
prevalence, because their denition describes physically aggressive be-
haviors generally rather than physical bullying specically. In Indonesia,
the report by Muryani and Phongpat (2014) produced excessively high
prevalence rates due to an extremely lenient criterion.
The two comparative data sets, GSHS and TIMMS, do allow compar-
ison of prevalence across countries; but unfortunately where the coun-
tries overlap (notably Indonesia and the Philippines), the two data sets
give contrary ndings. Using TIMMS, Lai et al. (2008) comment that
Students in Philippine had the highest rates of all types of bullying
(p.395); but the GSHS data in Table 3 show Indonesian pupils reporting
higher rates of being bullied than those in the Philippines, in all re-
sponse categories! This discrepancy might be due to behavior-based
vs. denition-based measures, different linguistic terms used, the differ-
ent times of the studies (2003 and 2007), sampling differences, or other
methodological factors such as response rates. In addition, and more
broadly than just the terms used for bullying, the equivalence of ques-
tionnaire items in different contexts needs to be considered (van der
Vijver, Chasiotis, & Breugelmans, 2011). Altogether, the ndings on
prevalence rates in these different countries are not yet on a reliable
enough basis to warrant systematic attempts to explain in terms of cul-
tural or educational variables, but we do advance some tentative hy-
potheses below.
7.3. Cyberbullying
Although a few studies in Singapore and Thailand specically
measured cyberbullying, many of the behavior-based studies assessed
bullying but did not include cyberbullying items. This includes the
TIMMS data sets. In the denition-based studies it is possible that
cyberbullying would be picked up by a global question (such as how
often have you bullied someone in the last term?) but some studies,
for example Buttabote (2011), appear to have used an earlier version
of the OBVQ without items on cyber (or electronic) bullying, which re-
cent versions of the OBVQ include. The GSHS surveys do not explicitly
include cyberbullying (see Table 3), although it might be picked up in
I was bullied in some other way.
Cyberbullying has been noticeable in many countries from at least
2002 onward (Rivers & Noret, 2010), and the surveys reviewed were
carried out (where this was reported) from 2003 onward; given reason-
ably high internet penetration in many of the countries (Table 1), clearly
cyberbullying items should be explicitly included in all research, and
this is a clear recommendation for future work.
7.4. Gender differences
Where reported, gender differences are mostly in line with Western
ndings, namely that boys are more often perpetrators of bullying,
whereas there is much less of a gender difference in being a victim of
bullying. Yodprang et al. (2009) reported no gender difference in phys-
ical bullying of others, which is unusual, in that almost all studies nd
physical aggression and bullying to be more common in boys. Gender
differences in cyberbullying are very variable across studies (Kowalski
et al., 2014; Smith, 2012; Tokunaga, 2010); the much higher rate in
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
boys reported by Ang and Goh (2010) is relatively unusual, although the
overall prevalence level is comparable with Western studies (Smith,
2012).
7.5. Other ndings
A number of other ndings not related to prevalence, are also con-
cordant with Western ndings; such as verbal bullying being the most
frequent type (many studies), victims being more likely to be depressed
(Uba et al., 2010), cyberbullies more likely to have low cognitive and af-
fective empathy (Ang & Goh, 2010), and perpetrators more likely to
have witnessed domestic violence (Yodprang et al., 2009). In addition
the studies by Ang and Goh (2010); Ang et al. (2010), Ang et al.
(2011, 2013); Pozzoli et al. (2012); Lwin et al. (2012) make distinctive
contributions to the international literature in their testing of individual
and peer factors predicting involvement in bullying and cyberbullying.
7.6. A call for more qualitative research
Apart from Horton (2011), Khiat (2012), Laeheem (2013a, 2013b),
and the LGBT report in Thailand (2014), all the studies reviewed have
been primarily or exclusively quantitative in nature. Also, many have
used versions of Western instruments, particularly the OBVQ and the
PRQ. While such procedures have advantages in terms of using stan-
dardized instruments and comparability with Western ndings, it re-
mains largely unexamined whether the nature and forms of bullying-
like phenomena in ASEAN countries are really very similar to those in
Western countries, or whether they might be more similar to phenom-
ena in the Asian Pacic Rim countries. For example, is extortion an
important category of bullying (Wong et al., 2008)? Do different forms
of social exclusion feature more prominently in these more collectivist
societies (Tom et al., 2010)? To ascertain this might require more
qualitative approaches, such as interviews, focus groups, or cartoon
methodology (Smith et al., 2002), to nd out the range of bullying-like
phenomena in a country; rather than using pre-determined categories
identical to those in Western instruments such as the PRQ.
7.7. Moving toward explanations for cultural differences in bullying
Once reliable data is gathered on prevalence and structural charac-
teristics of bullying in the various countries, a move toward explaining
such differences can be made. One approach would be to use the
Hofstede dimensions (Hofstede et al., 2010); of the ASEAN countries,
these are available for Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand and Vietnam.
The individualism-collectivism dimension has been invoked in pre-
vious studies: Li, Wang, Wang, and Shi (2010) examined intracultural
variation in Chinese adolescents, linking endorsement of collectivism
with less use of overt and relational aggression. However it may also im-
pact on the forms of bullying; Koo et al. (2008) argued that greater col-
lectivism may explain the emphasis on class-based exclusion and a
greater ratio of bullies to victims found in South Korea and Japan. The
six ASEAN countries for which data are available (Hofstede et al.,
2010) are generally high on the collectivism index (about as high as
South Korea, China and Hong Kong, and higher than Japan and most
western countries). Of these, Indonesia has the highest collectivism
score; this might predict lower bullying scores (partly supported by
TIMMS but not by GSHS), and more relative emphasis on social exclu-
sion (partly supported by GSHS, Table 3). Thailand is also high on collec-
tivism, and does have low social exclusion scores (Table 3).
These six ASEAN countries are also high on the power distance (hi-
erarchy) index in Hofstede's categories (Hofstede et al., 2010),
Malaysia being the highest of all countries, the others on a general
level with China and Hong Kong; Thailand the lowest of the six, but
still higher than South Korea and Japan (and most western countries).
This might suggest that more bullying will be reported as between
33
same-age peers, since such behaviors by older peers are more likely to
be considered legitimate. There should also be less bullying of teachers
by students, a phenomenon reported in some western societies (Terry,
1998).
The masculinefeminine dimension may also be of interest. The
six relevant ASEAN countries vary greatly on this dimension; the
Philippines is highest on the masculine end (but below Japan and
China) and Thailand is in the lowest group. In countries high on the
masculine end, males are expected to be more tough and aggressive.
Thus higher bullying rates could be predicted, but especially for males,
with a greater male-female difference in bullying rates. Contrary to pre-
dictions then, Rudatsikira et al. (2008) and Fleming and Jacobsen (2010)
found non-signicant gender differences in the Philippines, whereas
typical gender differences in victimization rates have been reported in
Thailand.
Further investigation of these dimensions would be worthwhile as
one explanatory framework for approaching similarities and differences
that might be found in further research. In addition, attitudes to bullying
and cultural baselines of bullying tolerance could be assessed; one study
found attitudes to bullying interventions in schools much more pessi-
mistic in Japan, than in England (Kanetsuna et al., 2006). The various ed-
ucational systems also need to be considered; important factors would
include use of homeroom classes, break times and their supervision,
and extent of grade retention.
7.8. Neglect of some important variables
In light of research in Asian Pacic Rim countries, and hypotheses re-
garding cultural differences, it would be informative to gather systemat-
ic data on some aspects of behavior that are not routinely gathered or
reported on. These include the magnitude of the gender difference in
bullying others; the proportion of bullying that is social exclusion-
based; the ratio of bullies to victims, whether bullies are usually in the
same class as victims; whether power imposition by older pupils is
considered as bullying; and the extent of pupils bullying teachers.
7.9. Relevance for interventions to reduce bullying
Finally, we mention the potential to use comparative information on
bullying for purposes of intervention. School-based interventions have
been carried out with some success in Western countries (Tto &
Farrington, 2011), and there has been some intervention work in
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and mainland China (see chapters in
Smith et al., in press). The only intervention study we found in the
South-East Asian countries is by Yaakub et al. (2010), which had
mixed results, but is an important start; many of the Western interven-
tion studies have had mixed results, and identifying the important com-
ponents for success is a gradual process (Smith, Salmivalli, & Cowie,
2012; Tto & Farrington, 2011). In addition there is a Bully-Free Cam-
paign website at the Singapore Children's Society, with details of
advice and support.
Anti-bullying intervention efforts in the ASEAN countries will un-
doubtedly benet from the research already carried out, but also from
further research that attempts to identify the particular features of
bullying-like phenomena in each country, and how to best adapt
existing procedures and devise new ones to be most effective in these
educational and cultural contexts. Given the signicant prevalence
rates in these as in other countries, and the known deleterious out-
comes of bullying-like phenomena, this will surely be a worthwhile
endeavor.
8. Summary
Within the last decade, a number of studies of bullying have begun
to appear from the ASEAN countries, potentially complementing a
much larger data base from Western and Asian Pacic Rim countries.
34 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
Many studies have used western studies of traditional bullying as a
reference point; but the advent of social media use, social networking
and cyberbullying may also have contributed to this increase in activity.
The studies in ASEAN countries are making a contribution both locally,
and potentially for international comparison. More qualitative research
would be desirable to ascertain the validity of what are usually western-
based instruments. We also recommend that future quantitative studies
should clearly specify denitions used, the date of data collection, and
the language used in collecting it. Cyberbullying should routinely be in-
cluded as one form of bullying. Besides prevalence, other aspects of data
would be theoretically relevant. Once reliable and comparable cross-
national data is obtained, explanations based on cultural, linguistic,
attitudinal and educational variables can be more systematically
attempted.
References
Akbar, J., Huang, T. -W., & Anwar, F. (2014). The development of cyberbullying scale to in-
vestigate bullies among adolescents. Proceeding of International Conference on Human-
ities Sciences and Education (ICHE), Kuala Lumpur (worldresearchconference.com).
Ancho, I. V., & Park, S. (2013). School violence in the Philippines: A study on programs and
policies. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 36, 2731.
Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective and
cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41,
387397.
Ang, R. P., Huan, V. S., & Florell, D. (2013). Understanding the relationship between pro-
active and reactive aggression, and cyberbullying across United States and
Singapore adolescent samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 118.
Ang, R. P., Ong, E. Y. L., Lim, J. C. Y., & Lim, E. W. (2010). From narcissistic exploitativeness
to bullying behavior: The mediating role of approval-of-aggression beliefs. Social
Development, 19, 721735.
Ang, R. P., Tan, K. -A., & Mansor, A. T. (2011). Normative beliefs about aggression as a me-
diator of narcissistic exploitativeness and cyberbullying. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26, 26192634.
Bauman, S., Cross, D., & Walker, J. (2013). Principles of cyberbullying research: Denition,
methods, and measures. New York: Routledge.
Buttabote, P. (2011). The relationship between bullying behavior and self-esteem in at-
tention decit / hyperactivity disorder patients. Journal of Psychiatric Association
Thailand, 56(2), 93102 (in Thai: abstract in English).
Chew, C. (2010). Prevalence of cyber bullying in Singapore. In E. Ng, & K. Rigby (Eds.),
Breaking the silence: Bullying in Singapore (pp. 6583). Singapore: Armour Publishing.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B.,
et al. (2009). A cross-national prole of bullying and victimization among adolescents
in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(Suppl. 2), 216224.
Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Currie, C., et al. (Ed.).
(2012). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: International report
from the 2009/23010 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Ofce for Europe.
Fleming, L. C., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2010). Bullying among middle-school students in low
and middle income countries. Health Promotion International, 25, 7384.
Fonzi, A., Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Bacchini, D., Bonino, S., & Costabile, A. (1999). Italy. In
P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature
of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 140156). London: Routledge.
Furlong, M. J., Sharkey, J. D., Felix, E. D., Tanigawa, D., & Green, J. G. (2010). Bullying assess-
ment: A call for increased precision of self-reporting procedures. In S. R. Jimerson, S.
M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international
perspective (pp. 329345). New York & London: Routledge.
Gonzales, R. H. (2014). Social media as a channel and its implications on cyber bullying. De
La Salle University, Manila: DLSU Research Congress.
GSHS survey results (2007). http://www.who.int/chp/gshs/datasets/en/index.html
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Horton, P. (2011). School bullying and power relations in Vietnam. PhD dissertation 541,
Linkping, Sweden: Linkping Studies in Arts and Science.
Horton, P. (2012). Bullied into it: Bullying, power and the conduct of conduct. Gloucester-
shire: E&E Publishing.
Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S.
M., & Espelage, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). New York & London: Routledge.
Kanetsuna, T., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Pupil insights into bullying, and coping with bullying:
A bi-national study in Japan and England. Journal of School Violence, 1, 529.
Kanetsuna, T., Smith, P. K., & Morita, Y. (2006). Coping with bullying at school: Children's
recommended strategies and attitudes to school-based interventions in England and
Japan. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 570580.
Krn, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A large
scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 46. Child Development, 82,
311330.
Khiat, H. (2012). Unveiling the intricacies of bullying: Students' perspectives in a poly-
technic in Singapore. Asian Criminology, 7, 122.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue:
Contexts, causes and consequences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 441454.
Koh, C. W., & Tan, A. (2008). Bullying in Singapore schools. Research monograph no 8.
Singapore: Singapore Children's Society www.childrensociety.org.sg/images/
stories/ResearchPublicEducationPublications/bullying.pdf and www.scribd.
com/doc/55986047/Bullying-in-Singapore-Schools.
Koo, H., Kwak, K., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Victimization in Korean schools: The nature, in-
cidence and distinctive features of Korean bullying or wang-ta. Journal of School
Violence, 7, 119139.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in
the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research
among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 10731137.
Kwan, G. C. E., & Skoric, M. M. (2013). Facebook bullying: An extension of battles in
school. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1625.
Laeheem, K. (2013a). Bullying behavior among primary school students in Islamic private
schools in Pattani Province. Social Sciences, 34, 500513.
Laeheem, K. (2013b). Guidelines for solving bullying behavior problems among Islamic
private school students in Songkhla province. Asian Social Science, 9, 8389.
Laeheem, K., Kuning, M., & McNeil, N. (2009). Bullying: Risk factors becoming bullies.
Asian Social Science, 5, 5057.
Laeheem, K., Kuning, M., McNeil, N., & Besag, V. E. (2008). Bullying in Pattani primary
schools in southern Thailand. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35, 178183.
Laeheem, K., & Sungkharat, U. (2012). Development of screening inventory for students at
risk of exposure to bullying behaviour in Islamic private schools, Songkhla Province.
Kasetsart Journal: Social Sciences, 33, 175187 (in Thai: abstract in English).
Lai, S. -F., Ye, R., & Chang, K. -P. (2008). Bullying in middle schools: An Asian-Pacic re-
gional study. Asia Pacic Education Review, 9, 393405.
Lee, S. -H., Smith, P. K., & Monks, C. (2011). Perception of bullying-like phenomena in South
Korea: A qualitative approach from a lifespan perspective. Journal of Aggression, Conict
and Peace Research, 3, 210221.
Lee, S. -H., Smith, P. K., & Monks, C. (2012). Meaning and usage of a term for bullying-like
phenomena in South Korea: A lifespan perspective. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 31, 342349.
LGBT-friendly Thailand? (2014). Bullying targeting secondary school students who are or
are perceived to be transgender or same-sex attracted: Types, prevalence, impact, moti-
vation and preventive measures in n5 provinces of Thailand. Bangkok: Mahidol Univer-
sity, Plan International Thailand and UNESCO (http://unesdoc.org/images/0022/
002275/22758e.pdf).
Li, Y., Wang, M., Wang, C., & Shi, J. (2010). Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adoles-
cents' aggression: Intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 187194.
Lwin, M. O., Li, B., & Ang, R. P. (2012). Stop bugging me: An examination of adolescents'
protection behavior against online harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 3141.
Margono, H., Yi, X., & Raikundalia, G. K. (2014). Mining Indonesian cyber bullying patterns
in social networks. Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Australasian Computer Science
Conference (ASSC 2014), Auckland, New Zealand (pp. 115124).
Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B. E., Frisn, A., Berne, S., Ortega Ruiz, R., et al.
(2012). Cyberbullying denition among adolescents: A comparison across
six European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15,
455463.
Miles, G. (2004). STOP violence against us! Summary report: A preliminary national re-
search study into the prevalence and perceptions of Cambodian children to violence
against and by children in Cambodia (www.kone-kmeng.org).
Mullis, L. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMMS 2011 International Results in
Mathematics. Boston College: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Muryani, S., & Phongpat, S. (2014). Bullying term of groups and gender in adolescents.
Musikaphan, W. (2009). A study of cyber-bullying in the context of Thailand and Japan.
Bangkok, 2009 (in Thai; abstract in English).
Musikphan, W., Yongchin, S., & Chancharoen, S. (2011). A study project on management
cyberbullying with family participation. Bangkok: Mahidol University (in Thai).
Ng, E. (2010). What children say about bullying in Singapore. In E. Ng, & K. Rigby (Eds.),
Breaking the silence: Bullying in Singapore (pp. 4163). Singapore: Armour Publishing.
Ng, E., & Rigby, K. (2010). Breaking the silence: Bullying in Singapore. Singapore: Armour
Publishing.
Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano,
& P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 727).
London: Routledge.
Ong, W., & Elliott, J. M. (2010). Young adult's recall of school bullying. Research monograph
no 9. Singapore: Singapore Children's Society (www.childrensociety.org.sg/images/
stories/OurServices/monograph9.pdf).
Pengpid, S., & Peltzer, K. (2013). Bullying and its associated factors among school-aged
adolescents in Thailand. The Scientic World Journal (Article ID 254083).
Pokpong, S., & Musikphan, W. (2010). Factors affecting attitudes and physically violent
behavior and cyberbullying among Thai youths. Bangkok: Mahidol University (in
Thai).
Pozzoli, T., Ang, R. P., & Gini, G. (2012). Bystanders' reactions to bullying: A cross-cultural
analysis of personal correlates among Italian and Singaporean students. Social
Development, 21, 686703.
Rahayu, F. S. (2012). Cyberbullying sebagai dampak negative penggunaan teknologi
informasi. Journal of Information Systems, 8, 2231 (in Indonesian: abstract in English).
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1993). The Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ). Adelaide: University of
South Australia.
Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of
Education, 14, 441455.
Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). I h8 u: ndings from a ve-year study of text and email bul-
lying. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 643671.
Rudatsikira, E., Mataya, R. H., Siziya, S., & Muula, A. S. (2008). Association between bully-
ing victimization and physical ghting among Filipino adolescents: Results from the
Global School-based Health Survey. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 75, 12431247.
 R. Sittichai, P.K. Smith / Aggression and Violent Behavior 23 (2015) 2235
Schwartz, D., Chang, L., & Farver, J. M. (2001). Correlates of victimization in Chinese
children's peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 47, 520532.
Sittichai, R. (2014). Information technology behavior cyberbullying in Thailand: Incidence
and predictors of victimization and cyber-victimization. Asian Social Science, 10,
132140.
Sittichai, R., & Smith, P. K. (2013). Bullying and cyberbullying in Thailand: A review.
International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 6, 3144.
Smith, P. K. (2010). Victimization in different contexts: Comments on the Special Issue.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 441454.
Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson,
M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: Inter-
national research and practice (pp. 93103). New York, NY: Routledge.
Smith, P. K. (2014). Understanding school bullying: Its nature and prevention strategies.
London: Sage.
Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kagitibasi, C. (2005). Social behavior across cultures: Living and
working with others in a changing world. London: Sage.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R., Liefooghe, A. P. D., & in collaboration with 17
additional authors (2002). Denitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used,
and age and sex differences, in a 14-country international comparison. Child
Development, 73, 11191133.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying, its forms and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376385.
Smith, P. K., Kwak, K., & Toda, Y. (2015). School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and
western perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (in press).
Smith, P. K., Salmivalli, C., & Cowie, H. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based programs to
reduce bullying: A commentary. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 433441.
Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239268.
Songsiri, N., & Musikaphan, W. (2011). Cyber-bullying among secondary and vocational
students in Bangkok. Journal of Population and Social Studies, 19, 235242.
Tapanya, S. (2006). A survey of bullying among students. Chiangmai: Psychiatric Depart-
ment, Faculty of Medicine, Chiangmai University (in Thai).
Terry, A. A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: A study to investigate
incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255268.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of
research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277287.
Tom, S. R., Schwartz, D., Chang, L., Farver, J. M., & Xu, Y. (2010). Correlates of victimization
in Hong Kong children's peer groups. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31,
2737.
Tto, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
7, 2756.
Tudkuea, T., & Laeheem, K. (2014). Development of indicators of cyberbullying among
youths in Songkla Province. Asian Social Science, 10, 7480.
Uba, I. U. (2009). Relationship between bullying, victimization, pro-social behaviour and de-
pression among teenagers in Selangor Malaysia. Unpublished Master of Science thesis
University Putra Malaysia.
35
Uba, I. U., Yaacob, S. N., & Juhari, R. (2010). Bullying and its' relationship with depression
among teenagers. Journal of Psychology, 1, 1522.
van der Vijver, F. J. R., Chasiotis, A., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2011). Fundamental questions
of cross-cultural psychology. In F. J. R. van der Vijver, A. Chasiotis, & S. M.
Breugelmans (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 934).
Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wan, S. W. I., Nik, R. N. J., Hatta, S., Marhani, M., & Shamsul, A. S. (2014). Why do young
adolescents bully? Experience in Malaysian schools. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 55,
S114S120.
Wan, S. W. I., Nik, R. N. J., Tuti, I. M. D., Shamsul, A. S., Aniza, I., & Zasmani, S. (2010). The as-
sociation between the attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and
bully/victim problem among Malaysian sixth-graders. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 11,
18.
Wan, S. W. I., Tan, S. M. K., Nik, R. N. J., Tuti, I. M. D., Syamsul, S., Aniza, A., et al. (2009).
School bullying amongst standard six students attending primary national schools
in the federal territory of Kuala Lumpur: The prevalence and associated socio demo-
graphic factors. Malaysian Journal of Psychiatry, 18, 512.
Willard, N. E. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Wilson, M. L., Dunlavy, A. C., & Berchtold, A. (2013). Determinants for bullying victimiza-
tion among 11-16-year-olds in 15 low- and middle-income countries: A multi-level
study. Social Sciences, 2, 208220.
Wong, D. S. W., Lok, D. P. P., Lo, T. W., & Ma, S. K. (2008). School bullying among Hong
Kong Chinese primary schoolchildren. Youth & Society, 40, 3554.
Yaakub, N. F., Haron, F., & Goh, C. L. (2010). Examining the efcacy of the Olweus preven-
tion programme in reducing bullying: The Malaysian experience. Procedia: Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 5, 595598.
Yaakub, N. F., Haron, F., & Jusoh, A. J. (2009). Pencegahan BULI di sekolah: Manual guru [Bul-
lying prevention in schools: A teacher's manual]. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications.
Yahaya, A., Ramli, J., Hashim, S., Ibrahim, M. A., & Rahman, R. R. R. A. (2009). Teachers and
students perception towards bullying in Batu Pahat District secondary school.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 11, 643658.
Ybarra, M., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J., & Oppenheim, J. (2012). Dening and measuring
cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 51, 5358.
Yodprang, B., Kuning, M., & McNeil, N. (2009). Bullying among lower secondary school
students in Pattani Province, Southern Thailand. Asian Social Science, 5, 4652.
Website references
GSHS (a). http://www.who.int/chp/gshs/methodology/en/index.html
Singapore Children's Society (a). http://www.bullyfreecampaign.sg/
TIMMS (a). http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2011/international-results-mathematics.
html