School Bullying: Factors, Impacts, and Societal Perceptions – A Comparative Review of Malaysian Higher Education and US Contexts

Introduction

Bullying, as a persistent and multifaceted social phenomenon, transcends borders and educational levels, surfacing in classrooms, campuses, and online environments across diverse cultural settings. It is not merely a pattern of aggressive acts but a dynamic power imbalance that recurs over time, shaping the psychological, emotional, and physical well‑being of those involved. The discussion here is anchored in a literature review that juxtaposes two distinct investigations: one rooted in a Malaysian higher education context that foregrounds peer influence as a central catalyst, and another rooted in the United States, examining emotional consequences and the rise of cyberbullying in both school and university settings. The goal is to synthesize how perceptions, social norms, and institutional structures interact to sustain or mitigate bullying in these different environments. (Page 03)

Beyond cataloging definitions or incidents, the aim is to illuminate how the social milieu—peers, families, and educational cultures—shapes what is considered normal or unacceptable behavior within a campus or classroom. By comparing these two studies, readers can gain insight into how contextual factors influence both the prevalence of bullying and the responses it provokes. This framing also highlights the importance of prevention strategies that operate at multiple levels: individual awareness, peer dynamics, and organizational policies. The following sections unfold by first examining Article 1’s insights from a Malaysian higher education perspective and then turning to Article 2’s focus on emotional impacts and cyberbullying in the US, before drawing cross-context comparisons and outlining forward-looking questions and conclusions. (Page 03)

Article 1: Exploring Students’ Perception of Bullying: Case of Study in a Malaysian Higher Education Institution

Key Concepts: In this study, bullying is treated as a shared social problem occurring within a university environment, shaped by the collective behavior of peers, the family background of students, and the broader campus culture. Rather than resting on isolated personalities, the dynamics of bullying are linked to the social fabric of the institution, including how norms are formed, reinforced, or challenged by those who belong to the campus community. The core argument is that perceptions of bullying—how common it seems and whether it is tolerated—offer critical insight into the strength and direction of on‑campus norms. The researchers argue that understanding these perceptions is essential to addressing bullying, since what people tolerate or dismiss will influence both the frequency of incidents and the likelihood that students report or resist mistreatment. (Page 04)

Arguments: The authors contend that social and environmental conditions exert greater influence on bullying behavior than intrinsic personality traits. Among the social factors, peer dynamics stand out as a dominant driver: students may initiate or participate in mistreatment to gain acceptance, align with group norms, or avoid exclusion. Family contexts also matter because early emotional support and value systems shape how students respond to social pressure and how they interpret peer behavior. A conclusion drawn is that bullying is not inherently gendered; both male and female students hold similar views about its acceptability or prevalence, suggesting that the issue is rooted in a communal climate rather than in individual gendered dispositions. The authors also underscore the potential escalation of harm if bullying remains unaddressed, citing real cases to illustrate the trajectory from everyday pressure to serious harm. Prevention, therefore, requires shared accountability across students, families, and the educational system. (Page 04)

Findings: The study reveals that bullying is perceived as a recurrent problem within the Malaysian higher education setting examined. The strongest contributing factor is peer influence, followed by family dynamics, while personal traits show the weakest association with initiating or sustaining bullying behavior. Importantly, no meaningful gender difference emerges in perceptions, reinforcing the view that the issue is broadly distributed across the student body. The findings emphasize that social processes—group norms, social exclusion, and peer validation—play a central role in how bullying is experienced and reinforced. Based on these results, the authors advocate for comprehensive awareness campaigns, enhanced reporting mechanisms, and established peer-support networks within universities. They also highlight the protective role of families in fostering resilience and healthy self‑esteem, which can lessen vulnerability to negative peer pressure. (Page 04)

Article 2: Emotional Impact of Bullying and Cyber Bullying: Perceptions and Effect on Students

Key Concepts: This article expands the bullying discourse to include both traditional (on‑site) and digital forms, focusing on the emotional consequences for students at school and university levels in the United States. It defines bullying as repeated aggression, intimidation, or social exclusion, while distinguishing cyberbullying as behavior enacted through online platforms, which can heighten reach and anonymity. The authors emphasize that bullying is a serious threat to emotional health, academic performance, and social relationships, with cyberbullying adding a layer of complexity due to the persistence and broad audience of online spaces. Understanding students’ perceptions of these behaviors helps illuminate how safety, self‑worth, and belonging are affected in both physical and digital environments. (Page 04)

Arguments: The authors argue that the emotional harm from bullying extends well beyond immediate distress, with lingering effects such as anxiety, depression, anger, and shame that can undermine academic engagement and social development. They highlight that vulnerability to bullying stems from a combination of individual traits and social circumstances, including self‑esteem levels and the quality of support from peers, family, and teachers. Cyberbullying, in particular, is seen as more damaging because anonymity and broad online exposure can intensify the harm and make escape more difficult for victims. The work also contends that bullying shapes victims’ self‑perception and worldviews, contributing to feelings of powerlessness and ongoing emotional threat. (Page 04)

Findings: The research shows that bullying and cyberbullying are associated with significant emotional disturbances, including heightened anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as anger and shame. These emotional responses can disrupt academic focus and social participation, creating a feedback loop that deepens vulnerability. Both individual factors (such as self‑esteem) and social supports (peers, family, teachers) influence how deeply victims are affected. The cyberbullying dimension amplifies these effects due to the perceived permanence and public nature of online abuse, which complicates coping and recovery. The study underscores the need for responsive supports, clear reporting pathways, and proactive digital safety education to mitigate harm across school and university settings. (Page 04)

Comparative Analysis: Bullying Across Contexts—Malaysia’s Higher Education and the US School/University Setting

Across both investigations, bullying emerges as a product of social structures rather than a purely individual shortcoming. In both contexts, peer groups hold substantial sway over what is tolerated, celebrated, or rejected, and family or caregiver influences contribute to how students internalize norms and respond to pressure. A shared finding is that perceptions about bullying shape behavior and reporting; when the campus or school culture communicates that mistreatment is a normal or acceptable part of life, incidents are more likely to persist. The emphasis on collective responsibility— engaging students, families, and institutions—runs through both studies as a practical pathway to reduce harm. (Page 05)

Yet meaningful differences arise from the contexts examined. The Malaysian study centers on a higher education campus where peer influence operates tightly within the university milieu, and the social environment is framed by campus culture, governance, and local norms. In this setting, interventions that strengthen on‑campus communities, foster supportive relationships, and bolster reporting mechanisms are highlighted as essential levers for change. In contrast, the US study foregrounds the emotional toll of bullying and the expanding realm of cyberbullying, reflecting a context where digital platforms intensify reach and vulnerability. The findings underscore the need for mental health supports and digital safety strategies that address online anonymity and persistent exposure. (Page 05)

Methodological notes, though not detailed here, suggest that both studies rely on students’ perceptions to map the prevalence and meaning of bullying, which underlines the importance of capturing subjective experiences in addition to objective incident counts. The comparative insight is that while the core dynamics of power imbalance and social reinforcement are universally relevant, the prioritization of prevention components—such as campus culture reform, family engagement, or digital literacy—must be tailored to the local ecosystem. The synthesis implies that cross‑context learning can guide comprehensive policies that blend emotional support with structural changes, including clearer reporting, peer mentoring, and proactive digital citizenship education. (Page 05)

Key Questions and Policy Implications

What are the most potent factors that sustain bullying in a Malaysian higher education environment, and how do they compare with the drivers identified in US school and university settings? Investigating this could help institutions tailor prevention efforts that address both campus norms and cross‑level influences. (Page 06)

How can universities balance the need for strong on‑campus communities with digital safety initiatives to minimize the harms of cyberbullying? This involves integrating mental health resources, digital literacy, and clearly defined reporting mechanisms that are accessible and trusted by students. (Page 06)

What role do families play in fostering resilience against bullying, and how can institutions partner with parents to reinforce healthy self‑esteem and supportive networks that reduce susceptibility to peer pressure? (Page 06)

To what extent do gender norms influence the experience and reporting of bullying in different cultural settings, given that both studies note similar perceptions across genders but may reflect distinct social expectations? (Page 06)

What policy reforms and programmatic strategies demonstrate the strongest potential for reducing bullying prevalence and mitigating emotional harm, and how can universities assess the effectiveness of these interventions over time? (Page 06)

How does the integration of socio‑emotional learning with disciplinary and academic supports impact students’ long‑term well‑being and academic success in both national contexts? (Page 06)

Conclusion

Taken together, the two articles depict bullying as a systemic concern anchored in social networks, institutional cultures, and, increasingly, digital ecosystems. The Malaysian study highlights how campus norms and peer groups can either normalize or deter mistreatment, with peer influence emerging as the dominant driver and family context shaping responses to social pressure. The US study foregrounds the emotional consequences of bullying and the unique challenges posed by cyberbullying, where anonymity and vast online audiences magnify harm and complicate recovery. Both works converge on the insight that bullying is not simply an individual failure but a reflection of broader social dynamics that require coordinated action. (Page 07)

Policy and practice implications emphasize multi‑level interventions: cultivate inclusive and accountable campus cultures; strengthen reporting and peer‑support networks; involve families in resilience-building; and implement robust digital safety and mental health supports. The comparative lens suggests that effective anti‑bullying strategies must be contextually informed yet capable of cross‑pollination—transferring lessons about building protective social environments, reducing stigma, and promoting proactive bystander behavior from one setting to another. Looking ahead, continued inquiry should interrogate how gender, age, program type, and cultural context shape both experiences of bullying and the success of preventive measures. (Page 07)

Ultimately, reducing bullying requires recognizing its roots in social architecture rather than attributing fault to individuals alone. By aligning campus policies, family engagement, and digital literacy with a nuanced understanding of local culture and global best practices, educational institutions can create safer spaces that foster emotional well‑being, academic engagement, and a sense of belonging for all students. This synthesis of findings offers a roadmap for universities and schools seeking to balance structural reforms with meaningful support for those affected by bullying in all its forms. (Page 07)

SSU1023 Assignment2 (Group20) - Flipbook by Fleepit