Headnote
Abstract
The present review aimed to theoretically analyze the relationship between bullying, school coexistence, and assertive communication. A qualitative, basic research approach was employed, following the PRISMA protocol as the main methodological tool. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles were established, focusing on those published between 2020 and 2024, with open access, and available in databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, as well as search engines like SciELO. The analysis was based on a documentary corpus of 18 articles selected according to PRISMA criteria and flowchart. The results were structured into three analytical categories: social learning perspective, systemic perspective, and communicative perspective. The main finding identified the systemic perspective as the most effective in explaining the phenomenon by integrating contextual, familial, and community factors that interact in complex ways to shape human behavior.
Keywords: Bullying, school harassment, violence, school coexistence, assertive communication.
Resumen
La presente revisión tuvo como objetivo analizar teóricamente la relación entre el bullying, la convivencia escolar y la comunicación asertiva. Para ello, se realizó una investigación de enfoque cualitativo, de tipo básico, siguiendo el protocolo PRISMA como principal herramienta metodológica. Se establecieron criterios de inclusión y exclusión de los artículos, considerando aquellos publicados entre los años 2020 y 2024, de acceso libre, y disponibles en bases de datos como Scopus y Web of Science, así como en buscadores como SciELO. El análisis se basó en un acervo documental de 18 artículos, seleccionados conforme a los criterios y el flujograma de PRISMA. Los resultados se estructuraron en tres categorías de análisis: perspectiva de aprendizaje social, perspectiva sistémica y perspectiva comunicativa. Como principal hallazgo, se identificó que la perspectiva sistémica es la que mejor explica el fenómeno, al integrar factores contextuales, familiares y comunitarios que interactúan de manera compleja para configurar el comportamiento humano.
Palabras clave: Bullying, acoso escolar, violencia, convivencia escolar, comunicación asertiva.
Introduction
Bullying, also known as school harassment or violence in the educational environment, is defined as any act of systematic aggression directed at a person with the purpose of breaking their will and breaking their psychological defenses (Cervera Rojas et al., 2019; Rodríguez Guerra, 2023). At an international level, this phenomenon has attracted unprecedented attention, especially in Latin America, where a 15% increase in bullying cases has been reported after return to in-person educational modality, reaching a rate of 21% compared to the pre-pandemic period. This increase in violent behavior has generated widespread concern in school environments, not only because of its implications for mental and physical health of victims, but also because of the costs associated with the intervention of various support, counseling and pedagogical accompaniment agencies (Romera et al., 2022).
The magnitude of this problem has motivated the implementation of programs aimed not only at preventing the conditions that foster bullying, but also at the timely attention of cases that have already occurred. According to UNESCO figures, 25% of cases of bullying in classrooms take place between teachers and students, while the remaining 75% occur between students themselves. This panorama reveals the need to address school violence from a comprehensive perspective contemplates intervention at all levels of educational interaction (Embleton Sánchez, 2023; Moreno-Bataller et al., 2019).
Likewise, international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) have warned that violence in schools has reached levels comparable to an "epidemic of violence" in educational environments. This situation is associated with family breakdown and a general increase in social violence. Since 2021, the rate of bullying cases has grown at an annual rate close to 8%. Similarly, the World Bullying Organization (2024) cited by Hikmat et al. (2024) reports that, in 2023, between 500,000 and 600,000 cases of bullying were recorded globally, with an increase of 35% compared to the previous year. In addition, the persistence of traditional forms of harassment is observed, as well as the incorporation of new forms, such as violence on social networks. The consequences of bullying are evident in physical and mental health of the victims. Various studies have indicated that this phenomenon can lead to physical injuries, such as fractures, and psychological problems, such as depression and anxiety (Williams et al., 2024). Prolonged exposure to these dynamics can have a significant impact on comprehensive development of students, affecting not only their academic performance, but also their emotional well-being. This context highlights the need for public policies to not only focus on correcting school violence, but also on improving the conditions that reduce its occurrence. Among these measures, assertive communication stands out, understood as ability to clearly and respectfully express desires, needs and intentions. This skill is part of the so-called "non-transferable skills", which are considered essential for proper resolution of conflicts (Ríos et al., 2022; Tejada et al., 2021).
The literature suggests that in environments where assertive communication is promoted, errors of interpretation are reduced, thus decreasing likelihood of violent communication dynamics arising (Cervera Rojas et al., 2019; Rodríguez Guerra, 2023). In this context, school coexistence becomes a key factor, since it encompasses the affective, emotional and sociocultural relationships that characterize the interaction of students in the classroom, since when there are high levels of aggressive behavior, school coexistence is negatively affected, which directly impacts group dynamics. For this reason, public policies must prioritize promotion of school coexistence through assertive communication, a tool that has proven to be effective in reducing violence in educational environments (Garcés-Prettel et al., 2020; Ortega Ruiz, 2020).
Within this framework, this systematic review aims to analyze the relationship between assertive communication, school coexistence, and the reduction of bullying rates. The main objective is to understand how interactions between these elements can contribute to the wellbeing of students. This review aims to provide new theoretical and practical evidence to understand this complex interaction, facilitating the formulation of effective intervention strategies in favor of school coexistence and prevention of bullying (Aliyar Najafabadi et al., 2020).
This systematic review arises from the identification of a theoretical gap related to the understanding of the dynamics that adequately explain school coexistence. This gap focuses on the need to establish the conditions for dialogue that allow reducing communication failures, which, in certain circumstances, can lead to violent relationships (Jandhyala, 2024). The literature on this topic presents heterogeneous and, in some cases, contradictory results, since, on the one hand, it is suggested that assertive communication is an effective tool to reduce errors of interpretation in the interaction between educational actors (Tejada et al., 2021). However, it has been pointed out that this form of communication, by itself, does not guarantee a significant reduction in incidence of bullying, since its origin is associated with structural factors of a socio-community and family nature (Hikmat et al., 2024).
Along these lines, some research postulates that strategies based on assertive communication can contribute to improving school coexistence, facilitating the prevention of aggressive behavior. However, it is noted that the implementation of these strategies does not always succeed in reducing the incidence of risks associated with bullying. This differentiation shows that, although the manifestation of these behaviors can be prevented, the possibility of their occurrence is not completely eliminated. This is due to the multifactorial nature of bullying, which is not limited exclusively to communication failures, but also involves other underlying factors, such as family structure, socioeconomic context and social cohesion within the educational community.
On the other hand, the literature indicates that not all episodes of school violence can be attributed exclusively to errors in communication. In this sense, the idea that assertive communication alone is capable of addressing all the underlying causes of bullying is questioned (Cervera Rojas et al., 2019; Tamayo-Escobar & Blair-Gómez, 2024). In fact, it is argued that conflicts in educational environments can be the product of multiple conditions, including lack of emotional control, behavioral dysregulation, and exposure to violence at home. These factors require a broader intervention that transcends assertive communication, encompassing both the family and school contexts (Rodríguez Guerra, 2023).
From a theoretical perspective, there is still no clear consensus on whether school coexistence should be considered a cause, a condition, or a product of interactions in the educational environment. Some authors suggest that school coexistence acts as a modulating factor that mediates between the levels of effective communication and the presence of school violence. Under this premise, it is proposed that an environment characterized by positive coexistence could attenuate the appearance of violent behavior, while one characterized by constant conflict would increase the probability of its occurrence. However, this relationship is not linear or unidirectional, as other studies affirm that school coexistence, rather than being a causal factor, is the result of previous interactions between school actors, which may be influenced by psychosocial, emotional and cultural elements.
Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative approach, based on the theory of Domínguez et al. (2019), who argue qualitative studies allow an understanding of social phenomena through the analysis of non-numerical data. In addition, the research is of a basic type, according to the guidelines proposed by Meneses et al. (2019). Basic research focuses on expanding knowledge and understanding of a phenomenon without immediate application in practice. In this case, the aim is to generate a solid foundation of knowledge about the interaction between bullying or school harassment, assertive communication and school coexistence based on three categories: social learning, systems model and communication theory. On the other hand, the study design is a systematic review, supported by the work of Latorre (2021), who describes the systematic review as a rigorous methodology allows to gather, evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence on a specific research question. To carry out this systematic review, the PRISMA protocol was used, following the guidelines described by Page et al. (2021).
2.1 Search strategy and selection of studies
In the present systematic review, inclusion criteria were used to ensure the relevance and quality of the selected studies. Publications made between 2020 and 2024 were included, focusing on the topic investigated within the field of social sciences, particularly within the area of Psychology. Therefore, only original articles were considered, which had to be indexed in the Scielo, Web of Science and Scopus databases. On the other hand, theses, books and any other type of document that was not a scientific article were excluded, likewise, those articles that, despite meeting the selected years and topics, were restricted or were not accessible in full text were left out.
For the selection of the study population, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established as detailed in Table 1. These criteria, based on Sánchez et al. (2018) and taking into consideration the PRISMA method.
The analysis technique for the selected studies was documentary analysis, following the recommendations of Domínguez et al. (2019). This technique allows the data from the selected documents to be examined and interpreted in a systematic and rigorous manner. Thanks to this methodology, a detailed and in-depth understanding of the studies was achieved, facilitating the identification of patterns, trends and recurring themes in the literature reviewed.
2.2 Data analysis
Figure 1. Flowchart for article selection according to PRISMA methodology. The diagram shows a flow for selecting records for a systematic review. 1346 records were identified from databases such as Scielo (37), SCOPUS (249) and Web of Science (394). After eliminating 184 duplicates, 365 records remained. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 216 records were excluded, reducing the number to 276. After purging the records using summaries and applying criteria again, 60 records remained, of which 18 were finally selected for inclusion in the analysis.
In this way, the above allowed us to obtain the following table:
Results
3.1 Social learning perspective
In order to understand the interaction between assertive communication, school coexistence, and bullying levels, four fundamental categories of analysis will be explored. The main one is Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory, which proposes that observational learning or learning through models is a key mechanism in the acquisition of behaviors, including those of a violent nature. This theory suggests that students, when observing significant authority models (parents, teachers, higher-status peers, among others), tend to imitate their behaviors, especially when these are perceived as effective or functional for achieving goals or resolving conflicts (Rodríguez Guerra, 2023).
From this perspective, it has been pointed out that, under certain conditions, students can adopt violent modes of interaction with their environment, especially if reference models resort to violence as a form of control or negotiation (Catuto Solano et al., 2024). Excessively rigid family models, where the imposition of rules without dialogue or the lack of negotiation processes are used, are an example of these environments (Chávez-Silva et al., 2023). Similarly, highly demanding or stressful contexts can lead students to develop behavioral patterns prioritize the imposition of rules or violent resolution of conflicts.
When communication with students is not based on positive feedback, or a form of communication is used lacks clear and precise instructions, a habit of interaction focused on confrontation is formed, replacing negotiation with the imposition of rules. In this line, assertive communication appears as an alternative strategy to traditional hierarchical communication, which is usually based on vertical imposition of rules (Garcés-Prettel et al., 2020; Ortega Ruiz, 2020).
On the other hand, assertive communication, understood as which guarantees clarity, mutual respect and reciprocity in dialogue, is proposed as a tool that allows the horizontalization of communicative exchange. This implies the democratization of the communication process, where the points of view of all parties involved are prioritized and the diversity of perspectives is valued. In this way, assertive communication not only avoids communication failures and ambiguity in instructions, but also contributes to flexibility in dialogues, facilitating adaptation to needs of the context (Flórez Madroñero et al., 2022).
Regarding the relationship between assertive communication and school violence, evidence indicates that this form of communication has an inversely proportional relationship with violent behavior. This means that, in contexts where assertive communication is encouraged, the probability of violent behavior in school environments is reduced (Arteaga Quintero, 2024; Perlado Lamo de Espinosa & Trujillo Vargas, 2024a). Likewise, one of reasons for this relationship is assertive communication favors the emotional validation of the people involved in the communication process, including both the victim and the aggressor.
This emotional validation not only allows recognition and acceptance of negative emotions such as anger, frustration or annoyance, but also encourages introspection and reflection. This process can contribute to emotional self-regulation, avoiding the escalation of conflicts and the adoption of violent behavior. Furthermore, Social Learning Theory also argues that, in certain cases, aggressive behavior is not necessarily produced by observing violent models, but by the reinforcement of aggressive behavior. That is, if a student observes that the use of violence allows him to achieve his goals (for example, to obtain attention, control or respect), the behavior is likely to be repeated and maintained over time (Flórez Madroñero et al., 2022).
From this perspective, socio-emotional and family factors are predictors of violent behavior, since authority models (parents, teachers and significant figures), through positive or functional reinforcement of behaviors, can inadvertently validate aggressive behavior. This validation does not necessarily occur explicitly, but can arise when parents or teachers use violence as a form of control or authority, reinforcing the idea violence is an effective strategy for conflict resolution (Andrades-Moya, 2020; Gaeta González et al., 2020).
On the other hand, assertive communication is presented as an alternative model of communication to vertical hierarchical communication that predominates in many educational contexts. Traditional communication is based on imposition of norms and rules that are sometimes not clear or understandable to students, which generates ambiguity in the interpretation of instructions (Romera et al., 2022). In contrast, assertive communication encourages clarity in communication and precision in instructions, allowing students to more clearly understand what is expected of them. This form of communication also facilitates active participation of students, which strengthens their sense of belonging and reduces levels of anxiety and uncertainty. By encouraging dialogue and active listening, a more harmonious school coexistence is promoted, which reduces the chances of aggressive behavior appearing (Sabah et al., 2022; Tejada et al., 2021).
An additional aspect to consider is assertive communication is not only limited to the relationship between teachers and students, but must also involve families and the educational community as a whole. Parents, as models of primary authority, play a fundamental role in shaping student behavior (Utomo, 2022). Studies indicate when parents adopt assertive communication at home, students tend to internalize this model and replicate it in their school interactions (Catuto Solano et al., 2024). On the contrary, when parental authority is based on authoritarian or violent control dynamics, students tend to replicate these behaviors at school, since they perceive violence as a valid form of social interaction (Man et al., 2022).
Likewise, it is observed assertive communication is also associated with the strengthening of school coexistence, since school coexistence is defined as harmonious, respectful and collaborative interaction between members of educational community. When assertive communication is encouraged, the chances of interpersonal conflicts are reduced and a positive school climate is promoted, which in turn translates into lower levels of bullying (Rodríguez Guerra, 2023). This relationship has been documented by empirical evidence, which suggests that schools with assertive communication programs experience a significant reduction in conflicts and violence (Flórez Madroñero et al., 2022; Pérez Guzmán et al., 2022).
It can be observed that social learning theory does not have sufficient explanatory capacity to offer a deep understanding of the problem of bullying in educational environments, nor of the interaction between this phenomenon and assertive communication, except in relation to the validation of points of view, emotions, attitudes and opinions. Although this theory can explain the relationship between these two variables, it does not do so adequately with regard to school coexistence, since the models that are relevant to the subject are not clear enough to explain situations of violence in contexts where the models that validate violence or nonpeaceful forms of conflict resolution are not present or are not predominant (Garcés-Prettel et al., 2020; Rodríguez Guerra, 2023).
3.2 Systemic perspective
On the other hand, the categories related to the applications of human behavior are addressed through contextual or contingency variables, that is, those variables linked to environmental setting and the broader relationships of the subject, such as family, school and community. Bronfenbrenner's systemic perspective is based on the assumption that human behavior is the result of a complex interaction between various contextual, family, community and personal variables. This theoretical perspective emphasizes influences of the environment, without losing sight of the psychological and emotional aspects of subject of study (Andrades-Moya, 2020; Gaeta González et al., 2020).
In this sense, the influence of the family, as the first socialization group or affective community, on the behavior of individuals is clearly observed. The family not only transmits care and protection to minors, but also behavioral models' students adopt to achieve their goals or increase their potential for action (Avşar & Ayaz Alkaya, 2017). In this context, the family acts as a normative model that regulates child's behavior, as well as their perception of the objectives to be achieved. Evidence shows that in homes where rigid or excessively authoritarian models of action predominate, the risk for minors increases, not only in terms of developing violent behavior in educational environments, but also in relation to victimization by bullying. In these homes, minors can be both aggressors and victims in school contexts (Flórez Madroñero et al., 2022; Pérez Guzmán et al., 2022).
On the other hand, it has been observed that, in families with poor communication quality, there is also a direct impact on the communication of children with their teachers and peers. In this way, situations of bullying or school violence often have their roots in dysfunctional patterns present in the family nucleus.
In addition, it is relevant to consider the community factor, since violence can be extrapolated beyond the family environment and manifest itself in a broader context, such as the community environment. Evidence shows that, in places with high levels of marginalization or social violence, this can be transferred to smaller group dynamics, such as students in their educational environments (Arteaga Quintero, 2024; Perlado Lamo de Espinosa & Trujillo Vargas, 2024).
In these cases, social violence, translated into high crime rates or unsafe environments, can create difficulties for students to develop adaptive and healthy communication skills (Ríos et al., 2022). Another study related to the separation of parents and the breakdown of the family unit has also shown detrimental effects on children's mental health and their ability to adapt to their immediate environment (Lohmeyer & Threadgold, 2023).
3.3 Communicative perspective
Another theoretical perspective deserves review is T. I. Emmanus' assertive communication theory, which explains conflict through communication or interaction models not based on assertiveness, but on unidirectional, authoritarian, and non-negotiation-oriented conversation styles. This theory, although it attempts to address nature of conflict from its informational or dialogue dimension, fails to fully capture the complexity of the bullying phenomenon (Briceño Nuñez, 2024; Hernández Benítez et al., 2021). This is because interactions between peers in a school environment are markedly different from interactions outside of that context.
While there are shared elements, such as hierarchization, verticality, adherence to a protocol, and institutionalization, the main weakness of this theory lies in trying to analogize interactions between students with general human interactions, which are much more complex and multiform (Andrades-Moya, 2020; Esteban Rivera et al., 2022). As the evidence points out, although there is a significant relationship between communication models adopted by students and the level of conflict within a school environment, this relationship is not strong enough to explain impact on school coexistence (Cervera Rojas et al., 2019; Gaeta González et al., 2020).
Furthermore, the evidence also shows the absence of a direct connection between assertive communication and influence on aggressive behaviors, thus, there is not enough evidence to link assertive communication with the reduction of the level of conflict related to bullying, since this phenomenon is not defined exclusively as traditional violence, but rather as abuse. In the case of bullying, we are faced with an exercise of power by an active subject who uses coercive behaviors or psychological reinforcement in a systematic and continuous manner, in order to bend the will of a passive subject.
Discussion
The systemic perspective best explains the interaction between assertive communication, school coexistence and bullying, by integrating contextual, family and community variables influence human behavior. According to Bronfenbrenner, the development of behaviors is the product of complex interactions between environmental, psychological and emotional factors. The family, as the first socializing environment, transmits normative models that directly impact the behavior of students. In rigid or authoritarian family contexts, the risk of violent behavior and victimization in school environments increases (Flórez Madroñero et al., 2022; Pérez Guzmán et al., 2022). On other hand, the quality of family communication directly impacts the interaction with teachers and peers, establishing dysfunctional patterns favor bullying (Arteaga Quintero, 2024; Perlado Lamo de Espinosa & Trujillo Vargas, 2024). Furthermore, community factors, such as social violence or marginalization, also influence school dynamics, making it difficult to develop healthy communication skills. In these environments, students have greater difficulties in adapting positively, reinforcing importance of community environment in shaping behaviors (Ríos et al., 2022). Parental separation and family breakdown aggravate these dynamics, affecting children's mental health and adaptation (Lohmeyer & Threadgold, 2023).
Although Bandura's social learning theory partially explains phenomenon of bullying by observing role models, its approach is limited by not considering complex interactions of environment. Likewise, the communicative perspective focuses on assertiveness as a key factor, but does not fully capture multifaceted nature of bullying, which involves a systematic abuse of power that exceeds traditional communicative dynamics (Briceño Núñez, 2024; Hernández Benítez et al., 2021).
Conclusions
In conclusion, the systemic perspective offers most complete explanation of the relationship between assertive communication, school coexistence and bullying, by integrating contextual, family and community factors interact to shape human behavior. Unlike approaches such as social learning theory or the communicative perspective, which focus on isolated aspects such as observation of models or the dynamics of dialogue, the systemic approach recognizes the simultaneous influence of family dynamics, the quality of communication and community conditions, providing an interpretive framework to understand bullying as a multi-causal phenomenon.
References
Bibliographic references
Aliyar Najafabadi, R., Meshkati, Z., & Badami, R. (2020). The Effectiveness of Assertiveness Training on Bullying, Competitive State Anxiety and Performance Under Pressure in Futsal Players. Journal of Research and Health, 10(5), 339-348. https://doi.org/10.32598/JRH.10.5.21.7.98
Andrades-Moya, J. (2020). Convivencia escolar en Latinoamérica: Una revisión bibliográfica. Revista Electrónica Educare, 24(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.24-2.17 Arteaga Quintero, R. del C. (2024). Incidencia de un plan basado en comunicación asertiva para los conflictos de convivencia escolar. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(5), 9795-9827. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i5.14361
Avşar, F., & Ayaz Alkaya, S. (2017). The effectiveness of assertiveness training for schoolaged children on bullying and assertiveness level. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 36, 186-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.06.020
Briceño Nuñez, C. E. (2024). Convivencia escolar. Perspectivas desde la orientación educativa. Tsafiqui - Revista Científica En Ciencias Sociales, 14(22). https://doi.org/10.29019/tsafiqui.v14i22.1171
Catuto Solano, S. P., Tumbaco Muñoz, M. Y., Rodríguez Rivera, D. Y., & Tomalá Mero, C. D. (2024). Convivencia escolar y el bullying en niños de Educación General Básica media de la Unidad Educativa "Malena Drouet de Carrera" durante el periodo lectivo 2022-2023. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i1.1806
Cervera Rojas, A. L., Cuellar Sanchez, L. M., & Parra Ocampo, C. I. (2019). Entrenamiento en Conducta Pro- Social y Asertiva en Observadores de Bullying escolar. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 12(1), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.33881/2027- 1786.rip.12109
Chávez-Silva, D. R., Facho-Cornejo, J. L., Reyes-Perez, M. D., & Fernández-Altamirano, A. E. F. (2023). El bullying durante la pandemia de COVID-19 en el contexto peruano. Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía, 8(2), 684-701. https://doi.org/10.35381/r.k.v8i2.2945 Domínguez, M. C., Medina, M. C., Gonzales, R., & López, E. (2019). Metodología de investigación para la educación y la diversidad. UNED Editorial.
Embleton Sánchez, S. B. (2023). La cultura del bullying (acoso escolar). Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 7(2), 7357-7367. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl rcm.v7i2.5886
Esteban Rivera, E. R., Sebastián Evangelista, E. B., & Quiroz Atachahua, A. E. (2022). Chumaq kaykayan, una vía para promover la convivencia escolar. Revista de Estilos de Aprendizaje, 15(EspecialII), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.55777/rea.v15iEspecialII.4596
Flórez Madroñero, A. C., Arias Romo, D. A., Obando Rivera, K. F., & Rivera Arizala, A. C. (2022). Comunicación asertiva en adolescentes de Tumaco, Nariño. Revista UNIMAR, 40(1), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.31948/Rev.unimar/unimar40-1-art9
Gaeta González, M. L., Martínez Otero Pérez, V., Vega, M. R., & Gómez, M. R. (2020). Problemas de convivencia escolar desde la mirada del alumnado de educación secundaria.
Estudios Pedagógicos (Valdivia), 46(2), 341-357. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718- 07052020000200341
Garcés-Prettel, M., Santoya-Montes, Y., & Jiménez-Osorio, J. (2020). Influence of family and pedagogical communication on school violence. Comunicar, 28(63), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.3916/C63-2020-07
Hernández Benítez, J. A., Agramonte Rosell, R. D. L. C., & Menéndez Alvarez, E. (2021). Convivencia escolar. Razones para la polémica de un problema actual. Revista de Investigaciones de La Universidad Le Cordon Bleu, 8(2), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.36955/RIULCB.2021v8n2.007
Hikmat, R., Yosep, I., Hernawaty, T., & Mardhiyah, A. (2024). A Scoping Review of Anti- Bullying Interventions: Reducing Traumatic Effect of Bullying Among Adolescents. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Volume 17, 289-304. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S443841
Jandhyala, S. (2024). Unconscious Bullying in the Workplace: A Qualitative Exploration. Journal Human Research in Rehabilitation, 14(1), 234-243. https://doi.org/10.21554/hrr.042421
Latorre, D., Del Rincón, D., & Arnal, J. (2021). Bases metodológicas de la investigación educativa. Ediciones Experiencia.
Lohmeyer, B., & Threadgold, S. (2023). Bullying affects: the affective violence and moral orders of school bullying. Critical Studies in Education, 64(5), 479-496. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2023.2193421
Man, X., Liu, J., & Xue, Z. (2022). Does Bullying Attitude Matter in School Bullying among Adolescent Students: Evidence from 34 OECD Countries. Children, 9(7), 975. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9070975
Meneses, J., Rodríguez-Gómez, D., & Valero, S. (2019). Investigación educativa. Una competencia profesional para la intervención (UNED). Editorial UOC.
Moreno-Bataller, C.-B., Segatore-Pittón, M.-E., & Tabullo-Tomas, Á.-J. (2019). Empatía, conducta prosocial y "bullying". Las acciones de los alumnos espectadores. Estudios Sobre Educación, 37, 113-134. https://doi.org/10.15581/004.37.113-134
Ortega Ruiz, R. (2020). Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible: del proyecto cosmopolita a la ciberconvivencia. Revista Investigación En La Escuela, 100, 112-122. https://doi.org/10.12795/IE.2020.i100.02
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., & Li, T. (2021). Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología, 74(9), 790-799. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
Pérez Guzmán, E. M., Sánchez Rivera, W. A., & Gonzáles Soto, V. A. (2022). Desafíos de la convivencia escolar en la educación básica regular. Horizontes. Revista de Investigación En Ciencias de La Educación, 6(26), 2296-2309. https://doi.org/10.33996/revistahorizontes.v6i26.492
Perlado Lamo de Espinosa, I., & Trujillo Vargas, J. J. (2024a). Análisis investigativo sobre las habilidades sociales comunicativas como herramienta para prevenir la violencia en el contexto educativo. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 82, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4185/rlcs-2024-2302
Ríos, X., Ventura, C., Lleixà, T., Prat, M., & Flores, G. (2022). Prevalence of Bullying in Grassroots Soccer in Spain: Victims, Bullies, and Bystanders. Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research, 94(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.2478/pcssr-2022-0002
Rodríguez Guerra, D. A. (2023). BULLYING Y VIOLENCIA ESCOLAR COMO ATENTADOS AL DERECHO A LA EDUCACIÓN Y HECHOS GENERADORES DE RESPONSABILIDAD CIVIL. Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado, 41. https://doi.org/10.32995/S0718-80722023665
Romera, E. M., Luque-González, R., García-Fernández, C. M., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2022). Competencia social y bullying: el papel de la edad y el sexo. Educación XX1, 25(1), 309- 333. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.30461
Sabah, A., Aljaberi, M. A., Lin, C.-Y., & Chen, H.-P. (2022). The Associations between Sibling Victimization, Sibling Bullying, Parental Acceptance-Rejection, and School Bullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 16346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316346
Sánchez, H., Reyes, C., & Mejía, K. (2018). Manual de términos en investigación científica, tecnológica y humanística. Universidad Ricardo Palma. Fondo Editorial de la Universidad Ricardo Palma.
Soriano-Sánchez, J. (2024). Transformando la convivencia escolar: estrategias de innovación educativa para abordar el acoso entre agresores y víctimas en educación primaria (España). Revista Innova Educación, 6(3), 80-95. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2024.03.005
Tamayo-Escobar, G. A., & Blair-Gómez, C. (2024). Consecuencias del bullying homofóbico en el bienestar psicológico de tres sujetos LGBTI. Clínica Contemporánea, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.5093/cc2024a4
Tejada, E., Garay, U., Romero, A., & Bilbao, N. (2021). El bullying desde el punto de vista del acosador: análisis y procedimiento. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 39(2), 373-390. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.422671
Utomo, K. D. M. (2022). Investigations of Cyber Bullying and Traditional Bullying in Adolescents on the Roles of Cognitive Empathy, Affective Empathy, and Age. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 937-950. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15251a
Walters, G. D., & Espelage, D. L. (2023). Mediating the pathway from bullying victimization to bullying perpetration with hostility, peer delinquency, and pro-bullying attitudes: Transforming victims into aggressors. Psychology of Violence, 13(3), 194-204. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000435
Williams, C., Griffin, K. W., Botvin, C. M., Sousa, S., & Botvin, G. J. (2024). Self- Regulation as a Protective Factor against Bullying during Early Adolescence. Youth, 4(2), 478-491. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth4020033
