School bullying is a significant social issue with an important impact on public health. To date, existing research predominantly emphasizes quantitative analysis, which leaves open the debate regarding central features (definition, types of behavior, roles, coping strategies). Our study aims to gain a deeper insight into the phenomenon, giving students a voice in expressing their experiences and perceptions. We conducted 16 focus groups with 220 Italian students, applying the Consensus Qualitative Research method (CQR) which emphasizes consensus among researchers to ensure the credibility and accuracy of findings. CQR involves identifying key domains, core ideas, and patterns of frequency (general, typical, variant) across data while incorporating auditor reviews to minimize bias and enhance reliability. The analysis identified seven key domains, with each domain containing core ideas classified based on their frequency across the focus groups: general (present in more than 75%), typical (25-75%), or variant (≤ 25%). In "Characteristics of bullying" domain, power imbalance emerged as a general idea, intentionality as typical, and repetition as a variant. For "Bullying behaviors" domain, physical and verbal bullying were general ideas, while relational bullying was variant. In "The bully" domain, moral disengagement and compensation were general ideas, retaliation was typical, and intimidation was variant. In "The victim" domain, perceived weakness and well-being were general, ethnic victimization was typical, and victim blaming was variant. In the "Other roles" domain, pro-bullies and bystanders were typical; defenders were variant. "Victim’s coping strategies" domain included nonchalance, distancing, and seeking social support as general, retaliation as typical, and talking with the bully as a variant. In "Bystanders’ coping strategies," protecting the victim was typical, while self-protection was variant. Overall, these findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of school bullying by highlighting the diversity of experiences and perceptions among students.

School dropout is a public health issue that has been linked to student school refusal (Thastum et al., 2019). According to Kearney (2002), students refuse school for many reasons, including (i) avoidance of school-related stimuli that provoke negative affectivity (i.e., avoidance), and (ii) escape from aversive social situations (i.e., escape). Among others, peer victimization has been identified as a risk factor for school refusal, as victims show higher rates of absenteeism than their peers (Astor et al., 2002). However, still little research has analyzed how peer victimization is associated with dropout risk. This study aims to investigate the association between peer victimization and dropout risk, by focusing on the role of school refusal. Participants were 1586 students in Italy (59.1% males, M_age=16.06, SD=1.60), who completed an anonymous online survey. A Structural Equation Model was employed to examine the associations between peer victimization (both traditional and cyber-victimization) and school dropout risk (thinking of dropping out and number of voluntary class absences). Indirect effects through two dimensions of school refusal (i.e., avoidance and escape) were tested. In addition, these associations were controlled for several individual (i.e., gender, depression and anxiety) and school-related risk factors (i.e., school grade, school stress). Peer victimization was associated with both avoidance (β =.17, p<.001) and escape (β =.49, p<.001) and, in turn, with higher risk of dropout. Specifically, peer victimization was indirectly associated with dropout risk through avoidance (b = .209, CI 95% [.123 - .332]), which emerged as particularly relevant in explaining school dropout (β = .79, p<.001), compared to escape. This study contributes to the literature on school dropout, and sheds light on peer victimization as a risk factor. Practical implications are discussed to promote social competence and peer acceptance, thus preventing individual and societal costs of school dropout.

Bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying play a critical role in either mitigating or worsening its impact. Previous research has focused on distinguishing the type of bystander response, often classifying them as reinforcers (pro-bully), neutrals (passive), or defenders (pro-victim). However, less is known about the reasons for adopting one or another response, which may be contextual. Given this gap, web-based experiments provide a powerful way to further explore bystander behaviour by simulating real-world online scenarios and analysing how different factors influence bystander responses in a controlled, interactive environment. Thus, this web-based experimental study aimed to understand bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying by analysing how factors such as the bystander’s relationship with the victim or bully, their popularity, perceived social support, perceived severity of the incident and the particular social network used (WhatsApp, Instagram, or TikTok) influence these responses, considering gender differences. For this purpose, nine web scenarios were designed and implemented, to which participants reacted by completing a survey. This study involved 195 Spanish adolescents (48.9% girls; 51.1% boys) aged 12-18 years (M= 14.11; SD= 1.48). Considering the types of cyberaggression identified, three scenarios showed insults towards the victim, three focused on social exclusion, and three addressed identity theft. Regarding bystander responses on each social network, the results highlighted those adolescents tended to be defenders when witnessing a situation of social exclusion on TikTok, neutral in impersonation on Instagram, and reinforcers reacting to insults on WhatsApp. Among the factors explaining this variability, friendship with the victim was associated with a more defensive response, whereas lower perceived severity of the incident was associated with a neutral and reinforcing response. Results varied according to gender. Results highlight the value of web-based experiments in understanding adolescents ‘online behavior and emphasize the need to consider the context to understand bystanders’ responses to cyberbullying, a key aspect of prevention.

Schools are important settings for the promotion, implementation, and education of mental health and wellbeing. Mental health issues have been recognised as the most pressing problem for children in developed countries (Williams & Bruckmayer, 2020). In Australia, the site of this study, approximately half of children’s diagnosed mental health issues onset before 14 years of age (Australian Government, 2019). Mental health concerns are common amongst primary school aged children and left to persist, can progress to long term problems with anxiety, depression, hyperactivity and aggression, reduced capacity to engage with schooling and issues with forming and maintaining positive peer relationships including susceptibility to bullying. The present study piloted and evaluated a classroom based mental health and wellbeing program for use in primary schools. A mixed method quasi- hybrid design methodology was utilised. An online survey was completed by students from 5 schools pre-test (n=173) and 3 schools matched post-test (n=68) with semi-structured interviews with teachers (n=4) and a focus group of students (n = 18) conducted at the completion of the program. Student questionnaire data was gathered including the use of three standardised and internationally used measures of wellbeing. Students at post-test self-reported significant improvements in positive emotional state (p<.05, moderate effect size), recognising (p<.001, large effect size) and expressing emotions (p<.001, moderate effect size) and reductions in anxiety<.001, moderate effect size). Importantly the students at post-test reported a 25% reduction in bullying. The findings suggest the program was effective in relation to promoting aspects of student wellbeing, emotional development and in reducing elements of anxiety and bullying. Shortcomings in the design including a lack of a control group must lead to caution in interpreting the outcomes.