Causes of School Bullying
Empirical Test of a General Theory
of Crime, Differential Association
Theory, and General Strain Theory
Byongook Moon
University of Texas at San Antonio
Hye-Won Hwang
Chongju University, Republic of Korea
John D. McCluskey
University of Texas at San Antonio
A growing number of studies indicate the ubiquity of school bullying: It is a
global concern, regardless of cultural differences. Little previous research has
examined whether leading criminological theories can explain bullying,
despite the commonality between bullying and delinquency. The current
investigation uses longitudinal data on 655 Korean youth, in three schools, to
examine the applicability of leading criminological theories (general theory
of crime, differential association theory, and general strain theory) in
explaining school bullying. Overall, our findings indicate limited support for
the generality of these three leading criminological theories in explaining the
etiology of bullying. However, the findings show the significant effects of
school-generated strains (teachers’ physical and emotional punishment and
examination related strain) on bullying. Directions for future research and
policy implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords: bullying; Korean youth; general theory of crime; differential
association theory; general strain theory
S
chool bullying has recently gained near-universal attention among
researchers, media, school authorities, and parents concerned about
students’ well-being and safety (Bosworth, Espelage, & Simon, 1999; Ma,
2001; Olweus, 1978; Salmivalli, Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Osterman, &
Kaukiainen, 1996; Siann, Callaghan, Glissov, Lockhart, & Rawson, 1994;
Smith & Brian, 2000). A significant number of studies have been conducted
in multiple countries to examine the prevalence of bullying and physical,
Crime & Delinquency
Volume XX Number X
Month XXXX xx-xx
© 2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0011128708315740
http://cad.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
1
Crime Delinquency OnlineFirst, published on May 20, 2008 as doi:10.1177/0011128708315740
Copyright 2008 by SAGE Publications.
psychological, and emotional harm to victims (Bosworth et al., 1999;
Greenbaum, Turner, & Stephens, 1988; Lowenstein, 1978; Olweus, 1978,
1991; Rigby & Slee, 1991; Salmivalli et al., 1996; Salmon, James, Cassidy,
& Javaloyes, 2000). Overall, these studies support the ubiquity of school
bullying, regardless of cultural differences. Additionally, research indicates
that bullied students suffer physical and psychological problems such as
depression, anxiety, suicide, school dropout, school avoidance, and learn-
ing problems (Greenbaum et al., 1988; Olweus, 1993; Rigby & Slee, 1999;
Salmon et al., 2000).
In light of the extensive study of this topic, it is surprising that few studies
have attempted to systematically examine factors affecting bullying (see
Bosworth et al., 1999). Perhaps most important is the dearth of research
engaging in extensive empirical tests to determine whether leading crimino-
logical theories can explain bullying. In the current study, we attempt to
address these limitations by analyzing longitudinal data collected on a panel
of Korean youth. We use three leading criminological theories with a general
scope—a general theory of crime, differential association theory, and general
strain theory (GST)—as frameworks for explaining the causes of bullying.
This is important research from at least three perspectives. First, it will
serve to bridge criminology and its typical emphasis on serious misbehav-
ior with the (arguably) more mundane but pervasive behavior of school bul-
lying. Second, it will explore the fit of general criminological theory in an
international context, which is an area where criminology must expand its
empirical inquiries. Finally, this investigation will open the door for further
study of this topic as we necessarily will leave more questions, and direc-
tions for future research, than answers in our wake.
Three areas that must be introduced by this research include definitions
of the phenomenon of school bullying, whether it is, indeed, a universal
phenomenon, and the extent of the consequences of this activity. Below we
will address these threshold issues as well as discuss bullying in the specific
context of Korea. We will also briefly introduce important explanatory con-
cepts from the three aforementioned theories and engage in empirical test-
ing to assess the overall fit of those general theories of deviance to the
phenomenon of school bullying.
The Definition, Prevalence,
and Negative Consequences of Bullying
School bullying has been studied extensively in internationally and cul-
turally different settings, but there is no unified definition (Bosworth et al.,
2 Crime & Delinquency
1999; Peterson & Ray, 2006; Siann et al., 1994). However, the common
theme among various definitions of bullying is that bullying comprises
physical and verbal attacks and harassment directed at a victim(s) by one
student or a group of students over an extensive period of time (Espelage &
Swearer, 2003).
Olweus (1978, 1993, 1994) conducted the first systematic research on
bullying. With a sample of Norwegian and Swedish students, he found that
a significant number of students in these countries are affected by school
bullying. Approximately 7% of Scandinavian students in the sample engaged
in school bullying, and between 5% and 15% of students in various grades
reported being bullied. Subsequently, numerous studies on school bullying
were conducted in various countries (i.e., Austria, Canada, China, England,
Finland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and the United States) to understand
the prevalence of bullying, factors associated with bullying, negative con-
sequences, and prevention mechanisms. These studies consistently indi-
cate that school bullying is a global phenomenon. For example, Nansel et
al. (2001) studied a representative sample of U.S. youth in 6th through
10th grade and found that approximately 13% of those in the sample
engaged in bullying. Wong (2004) analyzed a sample of 7,025 students
attending primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong and found that
17% of students at secondary schools and 23% of those at primary schools
engaged in physical bullying such as slapping, fist-fighting, hitting, and
assaulting fellow students. Baldry and Farrington (2000) with a sample
of 238 middle school students in Italy found that more than half of
students (53%) reported bullying others during the past 3 months. It is
not known whether the prevalence of bullying for different countries
actually varies or is due to different definitions and methodologies (see
Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Nevertheless, the ubiquity of bullying behavior
seems unquestionable.
This body of research also indicates that bullies are more likely to
engage in antisocial and criminal behaviors in their adolescence and adult-
hood (Batsche & Knoff, 1994; Farrington, 1991; Loeber & Dishion, 1983;
Olweus, 1993). For example, a longitudinal study by Olweus (1993)
showed that 60% of bullies in Grades 6 to 9 were found to have a history
of at least one conviction in their 20s, and approximately 40% had a history
of multiple convictions. Similarly, Farrington (1991) found a positive rela-
tionship between bullying during childhood and criminal behaviors in
adulthood. Longitudinal research indicates that those who bullied others
during the childhood were more likely to engage in criminal behaviors as
adults.
Moon et al. / Causes of School Bullying 3
School Bullying in the Korean Context
In recent years, school violence in South Korea, especially school bully-
ing, has been exposed as a serious school and social problem (BBC, 2007;
Kim, Koh, & Leventhal, 2005). A variety of studies have examined the preva-
lence of school bullying and its negative consequences in South Korea (Kim,
Kim, & Jung, 2001; Korean Educational Development Institute, 1998;
Korean Institute of Criminal Justice Policy, 1997; National Youth
Commission, 2003; Seo & Kim, 2004; Yang, 2004). Consistent with findings
in Western countries, these studies indicate a high prevalence of school bul-
lying in South Korea. For example, the National Youth Commission (2003),
sampling 14,638 elementary, middle, and high school Korean students, found
that approximately 26% of respondents experienced school bullying. Relatively
few studies sampling Korean youth examined the effects of individual and
school factors on school bullying (Yang, 2004). Limited studies (i.e., Seo &
Kim, 2004) indicate that bullies are more likely to show a high level of
aggression and impulsivity and associate with delinquent peers.
Despite a high prevalence of school bullying and negative consequences
to both victims and bullies in South Korea, there is little evidence that
schools and teachers have comprehended the seriousness of the issue,
developed any systematic plan for preventing school bullying, or provided
any counseling services to those involved in school bullying. For example,
the Korean Educational Development Institute (1998) found a significant
gap in the perception of the existence of bullying between teachers and
students. The results show that only 20% of teachers reported the existence
of bullying in their classes, whereas 60% of students indicated the existence
of bullying. S. G. Lee (2005) also found that school authorities tend to deny
the existence of school bullying or underreport the prevalence of school
bullying. Overall, these findings indicate that school authorities and
teachers do not give enough attention to school bullying or are not fully
aware of its consequences.
Three Theoretical Frameworks
for Understanding School Bullying
Overall, the magnitude and consequences of bullying appear to merit a
larger research agenda. That research would benefit greatly from theories
already applied to criminal behavior. The current investigation fills this gap
in the literature by assessing the fit of criminological theories to the school
4 Crime & Delinquency
bullying phenomenon. Below we review three criminological theories
briefly and describe how these theories provide credible explanations of
school bullying.
Low Self-Control and Bullying
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, pp. 89-90), low self-control
is the main source of criminal behaviors and behaviors analogous to crime.
Individuals with low self-control are more likely to seek immediate gratifi-
cation, to be physically active, to be insensitive to others, and to possess
limited cognitive and academic skills. Gottfredson and Hirschi also argued
that effective parental practices (i.e., monitoring, recognition of deviant
behaviors, and punishment of deviant behavior) have a significant effect on
the development of self-control. Overall, parenting practices are hypothe-
sized to have a significant effect on child’s self-control, which in turn
affects deviant and criminal behaviors.
Despite the recent development of the theory, a large body of empirical
research has generally confirmed the existence of a significant positive rela-
tionship between low self-control and deviant behaviors (Baron, 2003;
Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993; Hay, 2001; LaGrange &
Silverman, 1999; Pratt & Cullen, 2000). The research findings can be gener-
ally summarized as indicating that individuals with low self-control are more
likely to engage in criminal behaviors and behaviors analogous to crime.
Several studies examined the relationship between bullying and low
self-control or analogous concepts. A study by Olweus (1991) indicated
there is a significant and positive relationship between impulsivity and bul-
lying behavior. Other studies (e.g., Endresen & Olweus, 2001; Olweus,
1994; Slee & Rigby, 1993) also found that bullies are more likely to lack
empathy for others. Overall, these findings indicate that bullies are more
likely to be impulsive, to lack empathy for others, and to be easily pro-
voked, all consistent with low self-control.
Differential Association Theory and Bullying
Differential association theory (Sutherland, 1947) posits that delinquent
and criminal behaviors are learned in a fashion similar to law-abiding
behaviors. Sutherland (1947) argued that individuals are more likely to
engage in delinquent and antisocial behaviors when they associate with
delinquent peers or deviant parents. By associating with intimates (i.e.,
parents and friends) who exhibit antisocial behaviors and/or have favorable
Moon et al. / Causes of School Bullying 5
