Ecological factors and adolescent bullying involvement: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ecological framework is commonly used to investigate factors that contribute to adolescent bullying. However, much of this research has focused on individual characteristics and immediate social settings rather than distal environments, structures, and norms. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of empirical quantitative studies on adolescent bullying involvement that applied the ecological framework to examine the factors measured in these studies (i.e., individual, social, environmental) and the ecological systems reflected by these factors (i.e., microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, chronosystem). Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ERIC) were searched from January 2012 to December 2024 and 72 studies met our inclusion criteria (registered on PROSPERO: [CRD42023444096]). There were three times as many cross-sectional studies ( n = 54) as longitudinal studies ( n = 18). Individual and social factors in the microsystem such as demographics, personality, psychological characteristics, family, school, and peer factors were the most prevalent. The next most prevalent factors reflected the macrosystem, such as regional indicators of economic factors and gender equity. Environmental factors in the meso-, exo -, and chrono-systems were the least prevalent. Bullying perpetration and victimization were most frequently examined followed by defending and bystanding. Findings highlight the need for more research on the full range of ecological systems using longitudinal designs to understand how these systems impact one another and various roles in bullying involvement across adolescent development to help inform effective bullying prevention efforts. • Research on bullying from an ecological framework was systematically reviewed. • Individual and social factors were the most frequently examined risk factors. • Environmental factors from distal ecological systems were least examined. • There were three times as many cross-sectional studies as longitudinal studies. • More research on the full range of ecological systems is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".