Foreword
The National Institute for Educational Policy Research (NIER) has held the “International Symposiumon Educational Reform” co-sponsored with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT) since 2001.
The society and the economy today are being greatly transformed by rapid development of informationand science technology that lead to globalization of the world, and in order to correspond to such a situation in the society today, the educational reform is being advanced in Japan and all over the world.
This symposium was aimed, by inviting the specialists from various foreign countries, to learn from theexperiences in overseas, and to make the best use of such knowledge and experiences for the practice of
educational reform in Japan.
This was the fifth symposium, held under the theme of ‘Save the children from the risk of violence inschools – from the longitudinal surveys and international comparisons –”, on the 21st of February 2006,
at International Conference Centre, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.
The National Institute of Educational Research (the NIER at the preset) was held the ‘International
Symposium on the Problem of Bullying’ co-sponsored with the MEXT in 1996, and since then, we havebeen continuously researching on children’s problematic behaviours including the issue of bullying forthe last six years. Since 2003, based on the findings of this longitudinal study on bullying, we have also
started cross-national study with Canada, South Korea, and Australia, in all of which the issue of bullying
is recognized rather recently. In this cross-national study, the nature and the extent of the bullying behaviour as well as the effects of interpersonal relationships among peers, within families, and between children and teachers on the aggressive behaviour of children were examined.
As the results of this cross-national study was finalized, the international symposium was planned aiming at having active discussions and debates on the issue of bullying in Japan: how administrations, teachers and parents, and academic researchers can do to save children from the risk of violence and otherproblematic behaviours, by examining the similarities and differences between Japan and other countries.
After the opening remarks, a keynote speech was given by Mr. Yukihiko Nunomura, the Deputy
Director, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, the MEXT. In this keynote speech, Mr.
Nunomura explained about the ‘Urgent appeal on the Bullying Problem’ announced in 1996 by the
Minister of Education, the transition of the rate of bullying in Japan, and the basic policy for the problemof bullying and the concrete measures against bullying problems taken by schools, families, local communities, local educational boards, and the MEXT.
Following the keynote speech, the dialog session was conducted under the theme of ’10 years of
Education and Research on Bullying’, with Prof. Morita, Osaka Shoin Women’s University, and Mr. Taki,
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER. In this dialogue, the actions andtrends in Europe to bullying problems, and the projects being conducted by OECD were discussed.
Following the dialog session, the results of the six years longitudinal study on bullying in Japan was reported by Mr. Taki, the senior researcher of NIER, followed by the report of the cross-national study with
Australia, Canada, and South Korea, which was presented by Prof. Phillip Slee, Flinders University ofSouth Australia, Prof. Shelley Hymel, British Columbia University of Canada, Dr. Hee-og Sim, Kunsan
National University of South Korea, and Mr. Taki, the NIER. This report was presented under the themeof ‘cross-national comparisons of backgrounds and characteristics of bullying problem’, and the natureand the extent of bullying problems as well as the analysis of stressor of children in each country was reported.
After the break, the panel discussion was conducted under the theme of ‘save children from the risk ofviolence’ by Prof. Morita, Mr. Taki, Prof. Keumjoo Kwak, Seoul National University of South Korea, andMr. Jyuugou Imaizumi, Deputy Director, Student Affairs Division, Elementary and Secondary Education
Bureau, MEXT. During the panel discussion, the bullying situation in South Korea including enactment
of school violence prevention low as well as development of intervention programs was presented by
Prof. Kwak. Prof. Morita pointed out the importance of researching the discouraging conditions against
bullying and of developing interventional measures on the basis of such discouraging factors. Prof.
Morita also pointed out the needs and significance of strengthening of social bonds of children for successful prevention and intervention measures. Mr. Imaizumi, the Deputy Director, pointed out that thestudies presented in the symposium proved the fact that bullying can occur in any school, in any class, inany child, and schools are in an advantageous position to look carefully at each individual child and that
advantages should be best utilized.
In this symposium, about 200 people were participated including teachers, people from the local educational boards, and researchers.
This report is the transcription of the speech and the discussion of the symposium reproduced as accurately as possible based on the presentation paper of the symposium. We would be most grateful as an organizer if the findings presented in this symposium will be useful to everyone who wishes to save children
from the risk of violence for their efforts to tackle the problematic behaviour of children in future.
Thank you very much.

March, 2006
Director General, the National Institute of Educational Policy Research
Shigenori Yano

Contents
Foreword
1. Opening Remarks .............................................................................................................. 3
Shigenori Yano Director General, NIER

2. Keynote Speech ................................................................................................................... 7
Yukihiko Nunomura Deputy Director, (Elementary and Secondary Education
Bureau), MEXT, Japan

3. Dialogue ................................................................................................................................ 19
Yohji Morita
Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University
Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance andCounselling Research Centre, NIER

4. Presentation ......................................................................................................................... 39
Philip Slee
Professor, Human Development, Flinders Universityof South Australia

Shelley Hymel

Professor, Faculty of Education, Universityof British Columbia

Hee-og Sim

Associate Professor, Division of Human Ecology
Kunsan National University

Mitsuru Taki

Senior Researcher, Guidance andCounselling Research Centre, NIER

5. Panel Discussion ................................................................................................................135
Keumjoo Kwak
Professor, Department of Psychology
Seoul National University

Jyugou Imaizumi

Deputy Director, Student Affairs Division
Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau
MEXT, Japan

Yohji Morita
Mitsuru Taki

Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University
Senior Researcher, Guidance andCounselling Research Centre, NIER

Moderator Ryuichiro Shirama Director, Department of Research Planning andDevelopment, NIER

Afterword
AppendixInternational Symposium on Education Reform 2005
– February 21, 2006 Masaru Ibuka Auditorium, Tokyo –Opening Remarks Shigenori Yano

Keynote Speech Yukihiko Nunomura

Director General, NIER

Dialogue

Deputy Director, (Elementary andSecondary Education Bureau), MEXT

Yohji Morita
Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Presentation

Philip Slee

Professor, Human Development, Flinders University of South Australia

Shelley Hymel

Professor, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia

Hee-og Sim

Associate Professor, Division of Human Ecology, Kunsan National University

Mitsuru Taki

Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Panel Discussion Keumjoo Kwak

Professor, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University

Jyuugou Imaizumi

Deputy Director, Student Affairs Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau, MEXT

Yohji Morita

Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University

Mitsuru Taki

Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Moderator
Ryuichiro Shirama

Director, Department of Research Planning and Development, NIER

Symposium1. Opening Remarks
Shigenori Yano
Director General, NIER

Opening Remarks
Shigenori Yano, Director General, NIER

Thank you. On behalf of the organizer I would like to say a few words. First of all, we appreciate thisvery large turnout for this International Symposium on Educational Reform 2006.
In order to address major changes in our society and economy, such as globalization and the emergence of IT, educational reform is being pursued in Japan and throughout the world. The National
Institute for Educational Policy Research and MEXT have been hosting international symposia on educational reform under the objective of inviting leading experts in the field of educational reform around theworld, and learning from their experience and reflecting those experiences in the implementation of educational reform.
In this fifth symposium, which we are having today, we have decided to address the topic of “Saving
Children from the Risk of Violence in Schools.” The National Institute for Educational Policy Researchand the Ministry of Culture and Education jointly hosted an international symposium on the problem ofbullying back in 1996. Over the next six years, we carried out a follow-up survey, or what we call the longitudinal survey regarding problematic behaviour such as bullying, and from 2003 a cross-national study
to prevent problematic behaviour has been carried out.
Today we have invited experts from Canada, Korea and Australia, where bullying has been recognized
as a problem, and these countries have taken part in our cross-national study. Together with the Japaneseexperts, we would like to have a very lively discussion on the topic of “Saving Children from the Risk ofViolence in Schools.”
I sincerely hope that the findings at today’s symposium will spread globally through all of you who
have taken part in today’s program. And as an organizer, we would be most grateful if today’s symposium can contribute to your response and efforts against problematic behaviour, and hope that today’s
symposium will be significant and meaningful. And with this, I would like to conclude my welcoming
address. Thank you very much.

32. Keynote Speech
Yukihiko Nunomura
Deputy Director, (Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
MEXT, Japan

Keynote Speech
Yukihiko Nunomura
Deputy Director, (Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau)
MEXT, Japan

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you very much indeed for attending today’s International symposium on Educational Reform, entitled “Saving Children from the Risk of Violence in Schools”. I would
appreciate for your taking time in this very busy season towards the end of the fiscal year for this symposium.
I would also like to express our heartfelt respect and appreciation to everyone including school teachers
for making every effort of guidance of students including bullying issues together with your daily effort
for children’s healthy development.

Basic Policies of the MEXT on Bullying
As a keynote presentation, I would like to discuss the basic policies of the Ministry of Education on
bullying, which is the main topic today. I have PowerPoint slides prepared and they are shown on thescreen and they are also distributed to you as handout materials. Please refer to these slides as I speak.
First, on the issue of bullying, there is a basic position in the policy of MEXT. In 1996, the minister
Okuda (the Minister of Education at time) made an urgent appeal on the bullying problem. This was an
appeal to students, parents and schools. At that time, in junior high schools, there were many suicides as aresult of bullying, and the minister himself directly sent a message to students and children.
In this appeal, the Minister claimed that bullying is a serious violation of human rights. Because ofbullying, some students commit suicide or some are deeply scarred in their psychological health, and thus
bullying is never condoned.
This appeal advocates that bullying is never to be condoned, and to be an onlooker and to reinforce
bullying is also not permissible. When one is being bullied, one should not confine this to one’s self, butshould consult with someone. Those were appeals to all children. To parents, the message is to lookcarefully at children and create an environment where children can speak to their parents, and to teach athome and make them sure that bullying is never to be condoned. And to school teachers, to aware that
serious bullying can occur in any school, in any child, and to have a resolute position to protect the children who are being bullied. To the community, the community should not pretend not to notice andshould work toward not condoning bullying.

7

Current Status on Bullying
As for the number of bullying incidents, 21,671 cases were reported to take place in academic year
2004. It declined from the previous year in 2003. The overall trend is, after the minister issued the appeal
to prevent bullying in 1996, the amount of bullying decreased for eight consecutive years, and it turned to
an increase in 2003, but declined again in 2004. In the last decade, more or less the trend has been declining. But bullying often takes place out of the earshot of teachers, and there are serious incidents involving
juveniles that, on the surface, appear to be caused by bullying. Thus, we have to continue to pay attention
to bullying problems.
Bullying is a grave problem as it can, in the worst cases, be life-threatening.
In the past, when the survey was started in 1986, what I am showing here is the result of a survey in
1985, though, there was a bullying incident in Nakano Ward in Tokyo. In this case, pupils set up a mockfuneral for the victimized pupil for fun. In 1994, there was a suicide of a second-grader in junior highschool, which seemed to have been caused by bullying. After this case in 1994, the amount of bullying has
increased and the problem of bullying has become the grave issue. In 1995, the school counsellor system
was introduced to enforce school counselling capabilities. In January 1996, as I have mentioned, an urgent appeal was issued by the Minister of Education. In July 1996, experts had gathered in the Council
and a notice was issued. This notice is on comprehensive measures related to bullying problems, and wassent to the boards of education in prefectures from the Ministry of Education.

8

Keynote Speech

The Notice of July 1996 on Comprehensive Measures Related to
Bullying Problems
This next slide shows the contents of the notice of July 1996. As the basic awareness of the bullying
problem, the following points are shown. Number one, as for the position to be taken against bullying inany society, to bully weaker persons is never to be condoned as human beings and bullies are always on
the wrong side. And to reinforce bullying and to be an onlooker of bullying are also not permissible. Thisis the firm policy of MEXT.
As for the suffering of bullying, psychological pain, trauma, absenteeism from school and psychosomatic symptoms may be caused. In the worst case, suicide may be attempted or committed, and there is agrave influence on the victimized students. These are acts that violate the human rights of the students,
and these are behaviours that are never to be condoned as human beings. Teachers, parents and all adults
who surround children have to take an unwavering position so that there will be no victims of bullying.
And we should also prevent pupils and students from becoming either victimizers or onlookers of bullying.
As one of the countermeasures for above issues, what teachers can do includes the following. They
should provide guidance with genuine sympathy and compassion, putting themselves in the shoes of children. Teachers should be sensitive to warning signals sent out by children, and they should also have theproper awareness that bullying can take place in their own schools, in their own classrooms.
Regarding measures to prevent bullying, all teachers should have the awareness that the problem ofbullying is related to teachers’ perception of children and students and how teachers provide guidance.

9Human rights education should properly be taught so that all children properly understand the importance of one’s self, as well as the importance of others. Through moral education, special activities, andthrough the entire school education, teachers should give good guidance on the importance and preciousness of life and how wonderful it is to live. School teachers are in daily contact with children in asimilar way as parents, and school teachers are the ones who will be first to spot any changes. Teachers
should therefore detect bullying in the early stage and should take appropriate measures to prevent bullying so as to ensure the safety of students.
On the other hand, within the households, since bullying is strongly relevant to family education, families should provide a deep sense of affection and mental support, and should be able to provide discipline
based on trust. It is also important to have good conversation and contacts between parent and children.
Families should also be responsible in teaching that bullying is never to be condoned.
This is something that should not happen, however, some children are suffered in households by childabuse or domestic violence. Domestic violence or child abuse can be a stressor for children, and such
stress can be indirectly expressed in schools in the form of bullying. Schools and teachers, therefore,should take proper measures. If child abuse is suspected in households, there should be coordination withthe relevant organizations for early detection and early interventions.
As for the community’s part, within families, schools and communities, all the relevant parties shouldplay their roles and should be united in fulfilling their roles and be serious in countering the bullying
problem. Therefore, not only parents and school teachers, but within the community, the adults in thecommunity should not pretend not to notice bullying and work towards preventing and not allowing
bullying.

10Keynote SpeechSpecific Countermeasures by Schools to Resolve Bullying Problems
Regarding the notice from the ministry on July 1996, the following is shown as a way of specific countermeasures taken by schools to resolve bullying problems.
First, the establishment of effective guidance system. Under the leadership of school principals, allteachers should have common awareness in dealing with bullying problems. Since the bullying often
happens in classrooms within the same play groups, it sometimes difficult to distinguish from playing andmischief. Some teachers might think that students are being mischievous and as a result, response may bedelayed. In order to resolve such a situation in schools, some possible countermeasures are mentioned in
the notice. Firstly, to strengthen the guidance system and capability. Secondly, to conduct a regularquestionnaire survey to pupils and students. Thirdly, through on-the-job training, enhancing the counselling mindset of teachers. Fourthly, to have good coordination with the school nurse, and to observechildren form a multi-faceted perspective. Fifthly, to have close communication with parents. And finally, to have coordination and communication with different levels of schools, for example between elementary and junior high schools, and provide continuous guidance and sharing of information of students.
Next, regarding a fact-finding section in the notice, we have to make pupils and students sure that it isa correct thing to do to tell others if bullying is taking place. If bullying is spotted early on, in the great
majority of cases, the bullying problem can be solved. But if the response is delayed, it can be escalated toa more serious problem. Also, telling a teacher about being victimized sometimes aggravates the situation
and as a result, the student may lose trust in the teacher. This is one of the major problems in the schools.
Schools should therefore have a common understanding that teachers should protect children, and thatsense of determination should be communicated to children. For example, schools can show their antibullying attitudes to in and outside schools by making declaration of whole-school anti-bullying policy,
or by establishing anti-bullying slogans in school events What is important to solve the bullying problem
is that schools as a whole should be unwavering in their position against bullying.
Next, regarding educational guidance to a child who is a bully, again, an unwavering attitude is important. Individual guidance may be provided separate from other pupils or students. But if bullying is not
resolved even after teacher’s guidance or if a bullying becomes excessive, flexible measures should betaken, including suspension from school. There should also be coordination with police or a child consultation centre against vicious-natured bullying, including physical violence and blackmailing. At the sametime, bullying children themselves may have some special circumstances in which they are under stress inthe background. Therefore, not simply providing guidance, but are educational guidance and counsellingof the bullying children also important. On the other hand, towards victimized children, the major principle is that teachers protect such children thoroughly. And from that point of view, if it is necessary, as
an emergency relief measure, classes may be reassembled, or if bullying is excessive, a school transfer may
be considered.
Victimizers and victimized and onlookers should all be prevented. In order to do so, the school as awhole should actively provide all children a proper guidance, human rights and moral education within
their educational programs. As for some of the examples of effective approach by schools, there are pro-11

grams that assist students in building interpersonal relations and have a sense of social interaction. Thereis school training for stress management, and there is a cap program that assists a student to be able to say
No or Stop in the case of bullying. To help students and pupils to relax and have fun in schools, school
events, such as cultural festivals may be organized, and situations may be created where students can havepositive self-evaluation by having upper-class children take care of under-class children. These measures
are implemented as exemplary measures by schools to relieve the stresses of students and thus to prevent
bullying problems.

Countermeasures Taken by Family, Community and Boards of Education
Turning to coordination and cooperation between family and community, schools should establish
policies and explain those policies to parents, and seek understanding and cooperation from parents. At
the same time, schools should be sincere in responding to information that is provided to schools.
Parents may go to teachers to consult about possible bullying of their own children, but it may not beperceived as bullying by teachers or it may be seen as a temporary interpersonal problem, and bullying
may become prolonged or become more serious. Schools and teachers, when they receive information
regarding bullying, should try to find the facts from pupils and parents, and understand what is actually
happening.
In the notice of July 1996 from the ministry, in addition to those measures taken by schools, measurestaken by family, community and boards of education were also shown. As for the family and community
roles, I have already touched upon them so far. Now I would like to focus on measures to be taken byboards by education.

12Keynote SpeechFirst, as a part of an administrative organization, boards of directors should provide support to families
by holding lectures on child-rearing and providing necessary information to enhance family education
capability. Counselling services may also be enhanced, especially for younger parents. In the case offamily with child abuse problem, action should be taken by making networks and coordinate with otherrelevant organizations like child consultation centres.
As for support from boards of education to schools, in addition to daily guidance, assignment of teachers, teacher training, and suspension measures are included. School transfer measures are flexible measures that boards of education can use to support schools. In order to enhance the school guidance system, boards of education can establish a counselling office in the school or use volunteers, such as students or retired teachers, to provide guidance to students who become absenteeism from school as a result of bullying. It can also enhance coordination with outside counselling organizations. Currently, alarge number of non-profit organizations are conducting various activities and it is important to coordinate with these NPOs. In cooperation with youth-related organizations, events and exchange activities
can be organized where children with different age groups can intermingle and can have collective activities. These are opportunities where children can learn to be socially active.

Measures and Policies of a National Government
Next, I would like to turn to the measures taken by the MEXT. As a national government, MEXT istaking the following measures in order to prevent bullying. Firstly, the MEXT focuses on the children’s
healthy development of psychological health through moral education. Hands-on activity in nature is another measure that conducted as a model classroom activity. In order to complete a resolute guidance ofstudent, maintenance of student guidance system, including suspension measures, is reconsidered. In or-13der for children to thoroughly understand lessons, and to feel fun to be at school, the MEXT is conducting a review of curriculums. In order to prevent bullying and to provide guidance after bullying incident,
teachers must have strong guiding capability. Thus, in order to enhance teachers’ capability, the National
Centre for Teacher’s Development is conducting training.
In order for thorough consultation of children who have some kind of problems, including victimization, educational counselling services are offered in schools. School counsellors are assigned to public primary and junior-high schools for children as well as for parents. Schools, families, local community andvarious other organizations should coordinate in order to take effective measures against bullying andother problematic behaviour. There is an activity by the national government to promote such coordinated, collaborative activities, where a support team is established by schools, boards of education andrelevant organizations, and this is conducted as a model activity. For truant students including those whoare absent from school as a result of bullying, and those who are suffering from school absenteeism, in order to provide support within and outside of schools, schooling-support-network activity is conducted by
the ministry. This is to network family, school and relevant organizations to make them an effective network and to provide guidance and counsellors who visit the homes of the students who are withdrawn
within their homes and who are absent from schools.

Next, in order to deal with what one can call bullying at home, child abuse, the ministry is conducting
a survey and research activity in school. Given the revision of the child abuse prevention law, and the seriousness of the situation, examples of advanced child abuse prevention is disseminated nationwide, andat the same time, schools and boards of education made use of these cases of prevention and develop
training models and programs to enhance their capabilities in preventing child abuse.

14

Keynote Speech

Closing
So far, I have discussed policies of the Ministry of Education. In this symposium, a result of the followup study or the longitudinal study, within the schools in the same community, over a six-year period will
be presented, and it was indicated that bullying can take place in any school, in any classroom, in any
child. Also, this study showed the causes of stress for children who could, in turn, causes bullying problems in schools. Furthermore, through international comparisons, characteristics of bullying in eachcountry will be interestingly shown. Today, among all participants, I hope that you will compare notes ofyour daily effort and today’s results from this symposium, and that today’s results will be of some assistance to the daily activities to the participants.
I also hope that the results of today’s symposium will lead to healthy growth and development of children in each community, and there will be forward-looking or proactive efforts made to that end. Thankyou very much.

15

3. Dialogue
Last Decade of Education andResearch on Bullying Problem
Yohji Morita
Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Dialogue
Last Decade of Education andResearch on Bullying Problem
Yohji Morita
Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

TAKI: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Taki. I am with NIER or the National
Institute for Educational Policy Research. We have simultaneous translation services today and havebeen instructed to speak somewhat slower. I would like to follow these rules. Both Prof. Morita and myself happen to speak very fast; we actually enjoy the fast pace, however, for the sake of translation, we
would like to be somewhat slow today.

Aims for The Dialog Session
TAKI: As was mentioned by Director-General Mr. Yano, ten years ago we held a symposium on the issueof bullying. This first international symposium ten years ago was quite significant. The major aim of this
dialogue is, therefore, to discuss what has taken place in the last ten years. We decided who we should ask
for this effort, and we have actually asked Prof. Morita for his support in carrying out such an attempt.
I’d like to introduce Prof. Morita’s background, if I may. He is most famous for being the leading authority in research related to bullying. Since 1984, 1985, he has actually announced the Four-tiered structural theory of bullying. He has also been very much involved in the study carried out by MEXT.
Furthermore, he has been involved not just in school-related issues but he has also touched upon homeless issues and the issue of withdrawn. In other words, he has been very active in a very wide array offields. He was the professor at Osaka City University and now he has moved on to Osaka Shoin Women’s
University. As far as I understand, starting from April this year, he is going to be a rector and the president of this university, and so Prof. Morita’s time is going to be even more in demand.
Now, why have we asked Prof. Morita? As I’ve mentioned already, Prof. Morita has long-studied the issue of bullying, but he also served as the coordinator at the international symposium ten years ago. And
at the same time, he was involved in various cross-national studies. Apparently, the NIER carried out theinternational comparative studies, but Prof. Morita has already conducted similar study 10 years ago, andin fact, our study is somehow developing the study done by Prof. Morita ten years ago. Therefore, interms of international comparative studies, he is a leading expert. So, we believe that it would be the best
to invite Prof. Morita to describe the background of the past activities. I’m afraid of such a brief introduc-19

tion, but I’d like to invite Prof. Morita’s comments.
MORITA: Thank you very much for introducing me.
TAKI: Usually in such cases, we would have keynote speeches or keynote lectures, but this is such a very
valuable opportunity, we decided to have a dialogue style today where I will ask direct questions to Prof.
Morita on your behalf. If we talk in chronological order it’s very difficult to have a free discussion session. Perhaps I would be able to invite Prof. Morita to talk about some issues which I have never heard
myself.
Now in the previous international symposium, what did we discuss? Well, before I look back on the pastinternational symposium, perhaps I should begin with why we held the international symposium on bullying in the first place. What are some of the issues behind bullying here in Japan?
I think all of you are quite interested in the issue of bullying, though depending on your age, or on yourarea of interest, perhaps your knowledge would differ. After this session, we’ll be presenting the report ofa voluminous result of the survey on bullying. You might think that the report is not sufficient, or perhaps we should have focused primarily on caring children.
But as a matter of fact, as was indicated in the keynote speech, as far as the treatment of victimized children is concerned, I believe progress has been made. Although it might not be perfect, we have seen somevery reinforced efforts in terms of addressing the victimized children.
Although bullying itself has declined in number, I think we need to further reduce the number, but thishas not been successful so far. So, the questions are, why we need research, and how we can effectively
use the results of such research to reduce the instance and the occasions of bullying. With all these factors,
we would appreciate Prof. Morita’s input.

Bullying Situation in Japan in 1980s
TAKI: So without further adieu, if you could look back upon the catalyst for the previous international
symposium. Was this back in 1984?

MORITA: Yes, I started studying bullying in 1984. As I am a sociologist, I had strong interest in the
movement of the society, and it was an age when the society was changing greatly during 1970s to 1980s.
Since then, there has been a big flow of ‘privatization’, and this privatization becomes a big undercurrent
in our society.
Privatization is the movement or the flow of the society towards the direction of ‘Private’. In the opposite
side, there is vertical governance where everything is decided and leads by the government and people justfollow the rules. The society in the past somehow constructed in this way. Thus, the movement of privatization can be understood as a transition of the society from the public sector to the private sector.

20

Dialogue

The recent big topic of the privatization of postal services is one of the good examples of this movement.
Not only privatization of such public services but is there also a tendency for people to think about themselves or their personal lives rather than big social or public issues. Within this movement or the flow of
the society, I strongly felt that the sense of community, which individuals are supporting the society andforming the local communities, started to erode. And, I am strongly interested in how this erosion ofsense of belonging to a community affects children who are supposed to form our society in future. So, I
have tried to observe the situation surrounding our children by visiting schools and carrying out various
studies.
As I was also asked to talk about more personal side of reason why I was interested in the phenomenon ofbullying, I’d like to talk about it here. I have two children, and at that time, my children were in the sixthand the third grade of primary school. When I visited their school, the classroom was very much like ascene from a manufacturing plant or a factory. There were so many posters and graphs about children’s
productivity like who had the “most left things behind” or who the “best home worker” is. Children are
in the centre of this “factory”.
I’ve also seen exhibitions being broken, or some children actually threw stones at the home of their classmates. So, there was tremendous confusion in the school. However, the teachers were totally unaware. I
had the sense that the so-called bullying and harassment were taking place in the dark side of the children’s world. However, the schools were not aware of this, and so, there was a huge gap between what
the schools were aware of and what the children actually were. I felt that this gap had to be filled in. I
then started researching bullying as one example of such erosion and the breakdown of the sense of community. So, this is what I began to have interest in the issue of bullying.

International Movements on Bullying in 1980s
TAKI: I see. Well, the year 1984, as people who are interested in bullying may already know, was thetime the Ministry of Education in Norway carried out the study on bullying in 1983. You started studying
bullying at similar time, but as far as what you’re saying, your interest was totally separate from this?
MORITA: Yes, that’s the case. In fact, at that time, I did not know the study done by Olweus in Norway.
I first knew the study when I first visited the United States in 1985. As I was interested in criminology,
and Olweus is a criminologist, we had a few contacts there. In fact, I spent one day in Arizona and so did
Olweus, and we actually passed each other by a day difference in Arizona. This is when I knew his nameand, his publication, and this is when I first became aware that the issue of bullying was also addressed inEurope. However, as far as other countries were concerned, the issue of bullying was not so much interests for researchers. In fact, in terms of bullying research, Scandinavian countries such as Sweden and
Norway were the central countries in Europe, and aside from these countries, Japan also began research
into bullying. In other words, two leading countries of bullying research passed by each other in Arizona.
Anyway, that was the first occasion when I realized that a similar type of study was being carried out in
Europe.
TAKI: I see. Prof. Morita, you say that you’re a sociologist. In the case of Japan, bullying research ismostly done by sociologists, and actually I’m also an educational sociologist myself. But in the case of21

Europe, we find that psychologists are the ones who are studying bullying.
MORITA: Yes, I think so. Developmental or probably educational psychology, but it is the psychologists
anyway who are primarily studying bullying, and not so much sociologists. However, the centre of interest is, like Japan, not necessarily limited to mere peer relationships, for instance, girl A bully girl B or viceversa. But I think European experts were interested in various other matters, primarily the ethnic issue,
which currently is one of the central social issues in Europe: the relationship between the developing andthe developed countries, or the issue of immigrants and refugees. So, if you take part in international
symposia, you find not just academic experts but there are also many members of the government. So, in
terms of academic research, people from the psychological field were the central, however, it was taken asa wider social issue. They were interested in having greater consistency and integration within the community as a whole, and one aspect of that is happened to be the bullying issue.
TAKI: Yes, I agree, and I think this trend has become much more evident in the last ten years, hasn’t it?

How We Should Understand The Problem of Bullying
MORITA: Well, in fact, here in Japan too, we have strong interests in the issue of discrimination. From
about 1970s, we began to see the issue of discrimination against the Koreans living in Japan or against theindigenous people. So, here in Japan too, the issue of bullying was originally not treated as what we callnow ‘bullying’, but they were seen as one of the issues of discrimination.
However, back in 1984 to 1985, we had several tragic incidents related to bullying such as suicide case andviolence and murder case, and as a result, the issue of bullying caught the public interests. Now in Japan,
unfortunately the bullying issue began to spread in a very broad manner because this had a very serious
impact, and at the same time, the sense of discrimination or the issue of discrimination was somehow forgotten.
However, from about 1985 or so, I was asked to provide lectures on the issue of bullying, may be for acouple of years, and during these periods, as it was the early 1990s when the issue of bullying caught public attention again and lead people to the second phase of bullying problem in Japan, over ten years, people who hosted various symposia and seminars on the issue of bullying, were actually those who were interested in the issue of discrimination and human rights. That is because the issue of bullying was considered not only the matter of aggressive behaviour of children, but in the background, it also entails the issue of human rights, and how we could make people aware of this issue of human rights was one of the
key aims of our education. This became a major educational issue.
What is important is to take the issue of bullying with broader perspective. The question is how should
we form our society? A group of children or the school can be taken as one small society, what we callminiature society, and the issue of bullying is strongly linked to this problem: How can we create better
society for us and for our children. So, it’s not just because this is a behavioural issue that we should beconcerned, but we must take bullying as an Educational issue that we really must consider how can we
support our children so that they can be nurtured in a positive social environment, and this challenge has
not yet been succeeded.

22

Dialogue

TAKI: I think Japan has comparatively been able to come so far in such a stance that Prof. Morita has justmentioned. Now in terms of Europe, as you pointed out, the issue of bullying was treated as merely apersonal aggressive behaviour as it can be seen from the fact that they referred it as a “boy’s problem” Inother words, the issue of bullying was seen as mere aggressive behaviour primarily done by boys, and thequestion was always why this is happen and what sort of children do such a behaviour.
I think, in
Europe, for a very long time, this type of thinking had some impact on the way they addressed the issue ofbullying. Perhaps there have been some changes in the last couple of years. How do you see the situation?
MORITA: Well, so did we in Japan. Probably mid-1980s, the central issues were the typical characteristics
of bullies and victims, and the relationships between them. Many researchers hypothesized that there
should be unique and specific attributes and personalities of bullies and victims. However, when you carried out your research, Mr. Taki, I think you found that there was no specific or unique characteristic ofbullies or victims.
I totally agree with the results. The bullying issue isn’t just based on peer-to-peer relationships, but as Mr.
Nunomura mentioned, I think the surrounding environment, in particular the onlookers, played a very
major role. The four-tiered structural theory of a bullying group that I claimed is representative of thisphilosophy.

‘Bullying’ as a Research Category and Its Significance
MORITA: When I first began to tackle the issue of bullying, my fellow researchers criticized me. That’s
because bullying could include assault, injury, blackmailing and embezzlement, and all these acts are violation of criminal law. In fact, most bullying cases covered by the mass media include these behaviours.
So, when I started researching by using the concept of bullying, many people criticized that there is noneed to establish a specific framework for bullying, and saying why not treat this as a part of a criminal
act. However, I had stressed that bullying is a very important category on its own.
If you go to Europe, again, the focus is primarily on aggressive acts and acts of violence. And bullying isoften treated as merely a part of such aggressive acts. However, from about the 1970s up until the 1980s,
there was the third peak of problematic behaviour of juveniles in Japan, and we had seen the extreme nature of school violence. After that phase was over, bullying was carved out as a completely separate issue
because they had some very specific characteristics.
One thing is that it wasn’t just the wounds that victims received from physical violence because thewounds from physical aggression could be overcome. However, as far as the emotional trauma is concerned, it lingers and it could even distort the personality of the victims. Furthermore, it could damage
children who witness the incidents. Children could become very defensive and become very passive.
Bullying can bring about such a significant impact and damage on children.
At the same time, bullying is, of course based partly on peer-to-peer relationships, but the external force
or power to stop incident by people around bullies and victims are also very important factors. One morething that I often heard at that time is the comment saying that it is a children’s problem, and adults
should not get involved. That was the type of debate or discussion which the teachers had, and many peo-23

ple advocated this.
However, I personally believed that bullying is not only the acts that lead to serious problem among children, but it also the phenomenon that cannot be prevent without the proper function of mutual control
mechanisms among children.
Of course for the behaviour which violate the criminal code, I think adults should step in and even police
or courts should be involved. These are all controls exercised by the society in a very official manner.
However, bullying activities were originally prevented through mutual control mechanisms among children on a daily basis. This control mechanism is a very important part of a communal environment.
However, this sense of belonging to the community has broken down, and that is why I think we, those of
us in the educational field, must step in.
In other words, we have to create a method to ensure the sense of belonging to the community, and this is
the way that we should address this bullying problem. Thus, I think we need the mentality that we’re trying to nurture the future generation. So it’s not so much peer-to-peer relationship, but we must consider
the issue of bullying as being part of our society, and must think what we can do about it now.
We’re not talking only about skills, interpersonal skills. We’re talking about children being able to takepart in the society, being able to rehabilitate in the society. What we meant by social nature is the abilities
and the attributes of the children in that context.
TAKI: In the past time, the local communities or the children’s groups had a certain sense of norms anddisciplines, and these norms and disciplines were handed down from generation to generation. However,under the movement of privatization, this has been lost. As a result, people started to see and solve theproblem only at the superficial levels.
One of the typical examples of this was the story suggested by some researchers in the West. They said all
we have to do to prevent bullying is to supervise the playground of the school where bullying is most often takes place. I was totally taken aback by such a foolish idea. I believe what we need is to reinforce thesense of belonging that has been eroded, and to reinforce what is being lost. In this sense, this is really amatter of education. In other words, we need to recreate this community and recreate the sense of belonging to a community.

Superficial Measures and Fundamental Measures
TAKI: As was mentioned in the keynote speech, some measures may be seen totally irrelevant from thebullying issue. Some of these measures may not have a direct and immediate impact on the problem ofbullying. I think whether or not people understand the needs of these various measures have a key point.
MORITA: Of course, the measures in the earlier keynote speech included both emergency relief measures and measures of a long-term nature. In these measures, there were measures that aim to develop andnurture the sociality and humanity of children, and I think these are not irrelevant to the issues that wetalked about so far, but instead, some of these are actually directly linked to that problem.

24

Dialogue

But in 1985 when I began to study on bullying, as Mr. Nunomura, the deputy director-general mentioned, the figure was at the peak, and this is the time when the MEXT started to gather statistics on bullying. In fact, there was a comment by the chairman of the Central Educational Council, and bullying
cannot be overlooked. The usual role of the Central Educational Council is to discuss the curriculums,
but the issue of bullying got public attention and the chairman commented that this is an important educational problem. This served as a trigger point.
That was the first stage when bullying was seen as a social problem in 1984-85. After that, statisticallyspeaking, bullying seemed to decrease, but in the early 1990s, what I call ‘the second phase of bullying
problem’ was arrived and the issue of bullying flared up once again. This was not because we remainedidle in the meantime, but instead various measures were actually taken. But in comparison to the situation today, the society itself is not mature enough nor did we have a clear understanding of bullying. As aresult, the small-scale or minor bullying was gradually decreasing, but more serious bullying persisted.
There is a tendency to emphasize techniques and skills to deal with the problem or may try to solve it at
the personal level, just looking at the characteristics or personality of bullies and victims. Even by themeasures at this level, the minor-scale bullying can be decreasing as a result of the efforts of teachers at
school or local boards of education. However, the basic environment does not change easily. We have to
do humanity-building of children, and we also have to change the social awareness. But those are longerterm efforts, and they were not yet fully successful in the early 1990s. When the children were still in theprocess of personality- or humanity-building, they don’t have a very strong sense of one’s self. When thechildren see others being bullied, they may just remain an onlooker, and serious or grave bullying still
persisted. This was coined as the second phase of bullying problem in the early 1990s.
That is the historical development up until the 1990s. Then, there was an international symposium, andvarious policies and interventions against bullying or the policies by MEXT developed after the symposium can be taken as the reflection of the transition from superficial to the educational measures thataims to reach more-in-depth or more fundamental part of education.
TAKI: Yes, I totally agree. I think those who are participating in this kind of conference for the first time
may feel frustrated, and think that more direct measures should be taken, for instance, schools should bemonitored. In fact, I often heard such claims. I don’t deny the idea of such direct measures and they canbe implemented if necessary, but that is not a panacea and we have to look at the problem at the fundamental levels. But we are often tempted to draw stereotypes of bullies and victims.

Difference in Thoughts and Implement of Anti-Bullying Measures
TAKI: In Western countries, I’m afraid, studies focusing on superficial measures still remain. Though,these days, there seem more discussions going on by national level appeals and efforts of various people,
and bullying started to be understood and grasped in a broader perspectives.
MORITA: It makes no difference if I’m shifting away from bullying to school absenteeism. School absenteeism, in many cases, is caused by bullying. As Mr. Nunomura mentioned, children who are involved injuvenile delinquency may have been victimized at school or were abused at home, although a causal rela-25

tionship may not be proven. All of these problems are intertwined, and we cannot separate bullying as anindividual problem that is not related to school absenteeism or child abuse. But instead, we should have abroader perspective to think these issues.
As for school absenteeism, the national statistics count the number of children who absent from school
more than 50 days per year in the past or more than 30 days per year today. This is the definition ofschool absenteeism, but the statistics does in fact not count all the children who are absenteeism. So, the
MEXT is saying that we should take the matter of fact that any children have a risk of absenteeism. In
other words, children who appeared in the statistics defined by more than 30 days or 50 days of being absent from school is only the tip of the iceberg, and what is hidden underneath is huge. I call this as grayzones.
This is the same for bullying. Grave or severe bullying often attracts attention, but these are only the tipof the iceberg, and there are many incidents undetected. Though, when we see the statistics international perspective, our country is doing well, as for other countries, discovering rate is about 20 to 30 percent, but in Japan, the rate is about 40 to 50 percent. Even when we asked children themselves, the figure
is around 40 percent. So, we are doing well. But even so, there are 50 to 60 percent of incidents go undetected, and what are on the surface are the only phenomena that we are dealing with, but beneath that
there are hidden problems.
In the case of school absenteeism, there are children who don’t feel like going to school, or who feel likeavoiding school, or who feel reluctant to go to school, or who feel too tired to go to school, yet not true
school absenteeism. For children who are absent from school more than 30 days, there is a various different systems and organizations trying to solve the problem. But who we, educationalists, should really lookcarefully at is those children hidden beneath that top category, the children in gray zones. We have to effectively control this base or remainder of the iceberg.
And the same applies to bullying. There are major incidents that can be considered tip-of-the-iceberg,
but what we have to pay attention is those who hidden beneath that tip-of-the-iceberg. The children haveto have a sense of participating in society and to have a sense of being a member of the community. These
are the cores, and they should learn how we should respect others and others’ human rights. All of theseissues should be covered by education. There are many issues and problems with which the education
should grapple, and it is not enough to take actions only against those tip-of-the-iceberg problems. Of
course actions against such major issues are one of the subjects, but it is also important to take action
against those hidden problems.
This is the difference in attitudes to Education between Western countries and Japan. In the West, thetechniques and skills or programs to deal with problems that can easily be seen are more emphasized andgiven priorities.
TAKI: Yes, as Prof. Morita just mentioned, we have been taking these issues quite well here in Japan.
When I visit to foreign countries, I often explain to foreign researchers that it is common recognition forJapanese, as in 1996 the Minister of Education claimed, that we should think that there is no such stereotypes of bullies or victims. There are no special categories of children who become bullies or who become

26Dialoguebullied. But when I talk about it, many people got surprised and claimed that it is not true and there are
specific children who get involved in bullying problem. So, I then ask what sort of children they are talking about, and they claimed that people who receive child abuse or are rose in poor families and learn
criminal behaviour from people around them. They claimed that those children become bullies. But thatis not true.
Children who socially withdrawn may often be school truants before, but school truancy is not necessarilyequal to social withdrawal. Stereotyping is already shown to be wrong according to my survey, et cetera,in 1996, and it was also mentioned the symposium ten years ago.

The Causes of Bullying
MORITA: What I most concerned in the symposium ten years ago was the fact that there had been very
biased views on the cause of bullying in our society. I think there was a preconception, a very skewed preconception.
TAKI: Yes, Entrance examination is typical of those, isn’t it?
MORITA: The entrance examination war is one example, and some said in the past time, there was a bullying in the military, or some people think of the insularity minds of Japanese people. Furthermore, somementioned homogeneity of our society which attacks what is different. But this can actually be seen inother countries. But some people have preconceived notions that these are the causes of bullying, andsome extreme people even said that bullying happens only in Japan, and these people reporting their experiences in foreign countries. Some of these were even published for a book.
TAKI: Yes, I know, there isn’t such a thing as bullying in overseas, is it?
MORITA: If you go back to the report of the past research you would know who the good researchers are.
For example, some people said that bullying did not exist in Korea. But that is not true as we invited theexperts from Korea today. Bullying is a worldwide problem. Poverty, war and hunger, are the social
problems in some of the countries, but in other countries where these social problems do not exist, bullying is one of the major important problems. And because of such misconception, misguided or biased
policies are implemented. For instance, if the entrance examination wars are the major cause, then, we
should eliminate all entrance examinations and so on. That is not correct. We should not be extreme ininterpreting the phenomenon and we should not be extreme in implementing policies.
First of all, we should have the common awareness that bullying can take place in any society as there aresome common elements in bullying.
According to the definition of bullying by myself and by other researchers, there is a power relationshipbetween bullies and victims. If there are two people, then there are differences in terms of intellectuallevel, personality, or capability to control reward and punishment, or may be the difference in their gender or social class. In any case, these differences in power relationships are often called asymmetry.
Symmetry is where you have a balance, but bullying is taking place when asymmetrical or unbalanced

27

power relationships are found and misused. This is the essential component of bullying. MEXT also saysthat there is a power relationship of one who is superior and one who is subordinated.

These power relationships can be misused in any place, in any society, and human beings may be tempted
to misuse such difference of authority or difference of power and capability, and this can happen to anyone. There may even be bullying with good intentions, for example in an athletic club or in a club of certain activities. Because of competitiveness, someone who is lagging behind may be aggressively guided.
And this is also unintentional, but bullying, not from a vicious intent but from a benevolent intent.
In this sense, bullying can really take place in anywhere, but at the same time, it is often hidden and difficult for people to realize or understand very well. We have to enhance this awareness. We also have to
use education. It’s very important. Not only schools, but family education and community education areimportant because bullying can take place anywhere and because it can happen to anyone. Police, publicorganizations, and administrative organizations, should not be the only entities to be involved in bullying. They are implementers of emergency relief measures, but the ultimate solution should come fromchildren themselves. Therefore, we should place trust in children’s capability and should nurture the children’s capability to solve.
TAKI: In Japanese and probably in other languages too, when you say power relationship, people often
think about physical strength. Those who are larger in physique bully children who are smaller. But thatis not necessarily true. There are cases that small children manipulate and use other children to bully, andthese cases are more difficult to spot by adults.

28

Dialogue

MORITA: Well, actually teachers like us might even bully students. For example, I have the power tocontrol students’ marks and grades at university. I can throw my own frustrations to my students by giving them an impossibly large amount of homework, for instance. This is clearly a case of bullying by theteachers against students. Now what about the students? They say, “Oh, Prof. Morita is probably toobusy. Although he says we should read ten books, he himself probably won’t read ten books. I can ask
him questions.” But then I have the ability to approve the student’s credit or not. So that’s the assumption under which I provide instructions to the students. But the students have the right to direct questions to their teachers. So therefore the students can bully teachers by asking frequent questions.
So, when we talk about balance of power, it doesn’t necessarily mean physical strength or weakness, but I
think there is a so-called power resource. We have to identify the resource or the source of power, andwhat type of power resource would allow the party to have precedence. You may feel that students are in
the weaker position to teachers, however, the students have their resources to gain power over theirteachers. So, depending on how one uses potential power, the symmetry in power could be changed. Sothat is why I am saying that it does not depend on the attribute and the characteristic of one individual. It
could happen anywhere, and even in any classroom. It’s not so much peer-to-peer relationship; it’s amatter of which particular children have which particular power resources in a given setting, and how
does that particular child utilize the power resources available to him or herself.
TAKI: I think we have to instruct the children to utilize their power resources in an appropriate fashion,and if they are abusing their power, I think we have to provide them with appropriate guidelines. What
we are saying today as ‘sociality’ should include these awareness, and that’s why just taking superficial
measures is not enough.

The Aim of The International Symposium in 1996
MORITA: That’s right. So going back to what we talked about in the previous international symposium.
We talked about this awareness. In Europe there have been various tests and techniques that were being
studied and developed. In particular, Norway was a leading country in bullying back in the 1980s, andJapan was also one of the forefront countries in terms of bullying in 1985. So in one sense, Japan could becharacterized as being an advanced nation or developed country in terms of bullying. I don’t mean in thephenomenon of bullying but I mean in the context of the study behind bullying. Japan has started fairly
early and was able to accumulate knowledge and experiences.
Now in the previous international symposium, I believe Prof. Smith of the UK and Prof. Olweus werealso part of the symposium. They were the leading authorities in this field. Having seen various countries, they have also developed very unique programs which they developed in their own countries. Basedon their presentations, we tried to draw conclusions on the sense as to what we could learn from them.
Furthermore, we talk about some unique characteristics of Japan, but then there are also commonalties
behind the phenomenon of bullying. So therefore, we need to extrapolate and identify the common elements behind bullying, and at the same time, of course we have to identify the characteristics which are
unique to Japan. We must include and reflect all of these in our response. So that was the background of
our previous international symposium. And the cross-national studies which took place subsequently

29were also based on the same assumption. We covered various countries, Norway, the UK, Netherlands,
Japan and the United States. These countries took part in the cross-national study after the international
symposium.
TAKI: With that as a catalyst I think we began to develop the awareness that bullying is not unique toJapan, although there are some elements that are unique to Japan. And also since the first international
symposium we have began to be aware the needs for full-fledged study and that were the reason for carrying out the subsequent study. I’m afraid our time is fast running out. We have covered so many issues.

Global Trend on The Problem of Bullying
MORITA: I think one major global trend we see today is that there is a movement of exchanging academic information. This started from year 2000, the International Network of School Bullying andViolence. This was supported by the European Commission, the EU, and the French Ministry of
Education, and this is a global institution. Prof. Slee, I understand, is a party to this. The first meeting
took place the headquarters of UNESCO in Paris, and the second meeting was held in Quebec, Canada.
And I believe this year it is going to be held in Bordeaux, France. So there are accumulations of threemeetings.
They involve not just academics, but also people in the government as well. I was one of the keynote
speakers in the first program, and I was quite surprised as there are people from Europe, the US, North
America, South America, and Africa, and some 2,500 members took part in this program. I believe thisreflects the very strong interest among people around the world. And I believe this is also the case that it
is a very serious issue to be tackled by the government administrators. So it was a very interesting finding,and this international exchange has become a major trend. Carrying out international comparative studies and new ideas has begun to emerge, and academicians are now exchanging these new ideas on a global
scale.

30

Dialogue

Also, starting from this year, the OECD has launched or will be launching a new project. The OECD has
called upon various researchers and policy-makers from various countries to introduce and to discuss thephenomenon and the status of bullying in their respective countries.

31

This shows the structure of the network, and you will find that Europe is one of the central players, andNorway served as the secretariat in the initial phase.

32

Dialogue

And various national coordinators became involved. They would convey the status of their respective
countries, and they are actually posting that information on their website. The address is indicated on thePowerPoint, so if you’re interested please refer to this website. Prof. Taki and myself have supported thisinitiative, and we received this award from Bunkyo Kyoukai, and a Japanese version of this site is going to
be launched at Osaka Shoin Women’s University website, and we are going to be developing a database
there.

There will be information about research, the current status, and the measures that are taken and soforth, and this database could be used to exchange information. Now this database will be updated periodically. I would assume there are various other countries who will be taking part. The OECD primarily
has membership among the developed world, however, this number is going to be increasing. And so thisis the website, and the OECD website is indicated on this PowerPoint, and I do hope that this will be ofreference to you. Although it is not yet completed, that is because we began to look for information since
October last year and some parts of the website are still under construction. But we will be trying to enhance this website and I do hope that this can be a source of information for you. So this international
network is expanding.
TAKI: I’m afraid we have focused so much on the past. I wanted to focus on the decade from this point
onwards. Well, Dr. Taki?

The Significance of Discussing Bullying Now
MORITA: Why are we discussing this bullying issue in the first place? First of all, the social capacity orsociality of children is undeveloped, and there are so many problems. The social capacity or sociality

33

doesn’t mean just peer-to-peer skills, but it’s a matter of how much capacity does the person have in creating the community. It’s not so much being dependent on the government’s instructions, and the private
sector should not leave things in the hands of government. That is no longer the society we have today,
and all of us must be independent in this society today. And at the same time, we must balance and adjust
and coordinate the different interests among the individual citizens. In other words, our own desire andothers’ demand must be balanced. So perhaps what I would call citizenship has to be nurtured, and I believe this is one major challenge for the Japanese society going forward.
So, one major objective for my participating in this symposium today is to convey this message. We needthis mentality. And our actions toward bullying must bear this perspective in mind. I do hope that thisissue could be communicated. Of course resolving directly the bullying issue is quite important, but thatis not the end objective of this symposium. We have a much larger picture on hand. We must be concerned about resolving the social issue for Japan going forward, the social challenge for Japan going forward. And that is the background behind this symposium.
TAKI: Thank you very much. I was supposed to provide the wrap-up comment but I think you havedone so in a very sufficient manner. Ten years ago when we held the first international symposium, it wasan eye-opening exercise, but since then we have seen various developments. And in Europe, there is now
a trend away from psychology to sociology. People in social studies and people in the government are
taking an interest in the bullying issue. So perhaps the courses that we followed in different countries aredifferent. However, we now see greater commonalties as bullying is a global issue, and I think there isroom for Japan to voice its views.
So conveying these issues is very difficult to do, especially in the English language, because I think there’s
still the sense that we should just eliminate the tip of the iceberg, but that is not the case. The sense of belonging to a community, I think the Japanese people have had certain know-how and skills and this could
actually benefit the global community. So when we talk about the cross-national study in the next session,
I think Japanese ideas could be reflected.
MORITA: If I could add, yes, knowledge and experiences from the past is important. However it does
not mean that we are going to revert to the past community, the past society. That is not the case.
Individuals must become self-dependent. They must become independent. But at the same time, theymust exercise their own uniqueness, so people who are unique, belonging to one community, but able tobalance their differing interests. This I believe constitutes citizenship.
TAKI: In that sense, there are things that we should learn from overseas.
MORITA: Clearly, the Japanese society is changing and the children are changing alongside the changing
society. And in the context of the change, what kind of community as a society can be creating for the future is a major theme.
TAKI: Thank you very much, Prof. Morita.
MORITA: I’m afraid I have taken your microphone away, Mr. Taki. I apologize. Perhaps maybe we’ve

34

Dialogue

just gone overboard.
TAKI: Yes, I think it’s because we are able to communicate so well. Well, Prof. Morita will be taking partin the panel discussion at the very end of today’s program. I’m sure that he will be able to provide us withfurther comments at that juncture. So with this we would like to conclude the talk session. Thank youvery much.
MORITA: Thank you very much.

35

4. Presentation
The Characteristics and Backgroundof the Bullying Problem:
cases in 4 Countries
Phillip Slee
Professor, Human Development, Flinders University of South Australia

Shelley Hymel
Professor, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia

Hee-og Sim
Associate Professor, Division of Human Ecology
Kunsan National University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Presentation
The Characteristics and Backgroundof the Bullying Problem: cases in 4 Countries
Phillip Slee
Professor, Human Development, Flinders University of South Australia

Shelley Hymel
Professor, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia

Hee-og Sim
Associate Professor, Division of Human Ecology, Kunsan National University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

TAKI: We will now go on to the presentation session on the topic “The Characteristics and Backgroundof the Bullying Problem: Cases in 4 Countries.” Now we have about one hour and 50 minutes for this session. It’s a very long session, and you will find that there are many graphs contained in the reference material. So I think our job here is to explain the meaning of these graphs as easy and enjoyable manner as
possible for you. Maybe that’s a very difficult task to do, but we would like to be as efficient as possible,and hope to explain some of the major points behind this cross-national study including the reason why
we need these longitudinal and cross-national studies.
In the first 30 minutes or so, we would like to talk about the follow-up study or the longitudinal study inJapan and then expand our session to cover cross-national comparisons.

■ First Part: On the Longitudinal Study for 6 Years in Japan
Research History of The NIER for Last 10 Years
TAKI: In the previous session, we talked about having an international symposium some ten years ago.
As I’m a researcher myself, I started researching on bullying in 1985, which followed by the study in 1986
and 1987, in a way by following the study done by Prof. Morita in 1984. My research interest at that time
was primarily academic. It was an interest in my capacity as a researcher. Then, when I transferred myself
to the National Institute for Educational Policy Research (former National Institute for Educational
Research), the international symposium on bullying was just held.

39

In this symposium, I was amazed by the fact that researchers in overseas’ countries were interested inmeasures to alleviate bullying or even considered how to nurture children. This was a striking finding forme. I did not realize that the study of bullying could be expanded to that scope. I had come to realize that
we should carry out research not just on the bullying itself in an academic fashion, but we should also go
as far as considering possible solutions.
From that point I began to develop the so-called ‘P.E.A.C.E method’, a prevention program against bullying. This program was based on the ‘P.E.C.A.E Pack’ developed by Prof. Slee, and was modified in theway to be more applicable in the situation in Japan. We also talked about the needs to nurture social capacity of children, and we’re thinking of sociality of children as not just about social skills, but also thesense of belonging to the society. A peer support program was developed with a reflection of such a view
among the children, and at the same time, to identify the background why these problems occur in thefirst place, we developed the stress checklist.
While addressing all of these issues in this manner, we are focusing on not only interventional measures
but also on the process in which how we should approach to the problem of bullying and other problematic behaviours. Today, I would like to cover the follow-up survey for six years in Japan for your reference.

6-Year-Follow-Up Study and Its Aims
TAKI: This covers from 1998 to 2003, and we carried out the survey twice a year. Usually, this kinds ofsurvey on bullying takes place only once a year, and the MEXT already carries out survey into the occur-

40

Presentation

rence of bullying, and so there is so much data relevant to this. However, we wanted to explore further to
identify why these longitudinal surveys or follow-up surveys are required. I have decided to carry out thissix-year-longitudinal-survey twice a year for children from grade 4 to grade 9, which are all the way fromprimary school up until lower secondary school, to examine whether there is any change in children during these six years. In 1998, we carried out our first survey for children from grade 4 to grade 9. This isdone twice a year, in June and November. So we carried out the total of 12 surveys in a span of six years.

In the course of the study, we were able to aggregate information about primary school kids in 1998, or
we can aggregate and accumulate information about lower secondary school kids. However, if the numbers are what we are interested in, all we have to do is carry out a survey once a year, but what we wanted
to do was as follows: we wanted to follow what happens to fourth graders when they move on to, let’s say,seventh grade. This follow-up survey allows us to identify the change or the transition of their behaviour
and in order to identify whether or not the bullying issue is a unique issue to one particular child or one
type of children, we need this longitudinal study. We can follow many years, maybe four years even. As anational educational research institute, we can do something that ordinary universities can’t cover. We
felt that we could carry out a survey which was quite meaningful.
Now, based on this data, what we want to make clear to the audience is the fact that serious bullying canhappen to any school, any class and any child. This was the urgent appeal made by the Minister of
Education in 1996. I personally believe this is a remarkable appeal, and this is something applicable notjust to Japan but also throughout the world. Unfortunately, though, it’s very difficult for people to understand the significance of this appeal. As was mentioned by Prof. Morita, carrying out a cross-national
study allows us to aware that bullying is not unique to Japan. However, as there are also some unique41

characteristics to bullying in different countries, the appeal that bullying can happen to any child was notreadily accepted by people in Western countries. I was somewhat frustrated by that, and I really wanted tocarry out a survey to validate this appeal. Since I moved on to NIER, I decided to carry out this type offollow-up survey in a full-fledged manner.

Experiences of Victimization Among Primary Children
TAKI: At the first survey, this is the rate of the experience of victimization of children from grade 4 tograde 6. We found that the percentage is roughly flat over the years. What this means is that althoughpeople might think bullying is not really happen this year or is happening very often, if you take a look at
all the 12 schools in a given area, bullying always takes place at somewhere, and the frequency is roughly
the same. In other words, it’s a matter of our awareness to think whether or not bullying is taking place,because in reality, it is always happening at sometime and somewhere.

42Presentation

Transition of victimization rate in primary school: 6 years 12 surveys (boys)

小学校４〜６年（男子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Prim.School Gr4-6(boys):Victims:excluded,ignored,spreaded rumor
100%
90%
80%

54.6

70%

53.1

55.8

53.6

54.2

51.8

53.9

50.8

57.2

57.7

55.2

53.1

60%

ぜんぜん
never

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

24.6

26.1

23.9

25.6

25.0

26.0

25.2

28.3

23.7

23.2

23.9

25.2

10.2

11.0

9.0

10.7

11.6

12.5

10.0

12.2

8.3

9.6

10.6

11.0

10.6

9.7

10.7

10.1

9.2

9.7

11.0

8.7

10.8

9.4

10.3

10.8

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1449 N=1461 N=1391 N=1392 N=1365 N=1375 N=1332 N=1318 N=1323 N=1342 N=1229 N=1304
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

I should note that the study done by MEXT examines the frequency of the occurrence of bullying in eachschool. In contrast, our study asked questions to individual child whether or not he / she has been bullied, for instance. Therefore, our survey at NIER and the MEXT survey are totally different in terms of actual figures revealed by the study as well as of the method of the study and of the statistical analysis.
However, even so, it is quite obvious that there are no major changes in the frequency of occurrence ofbullying over the years. The numbers seem fairly the same.
This particular graph shows the rate of victimization of girls from grade 4 to grade 6 in primary school,
but again, all these years seem quite identical.

Transition of victimization rate in primary school: 6 years 12 surveys (girls)
小学校４〜６年（女子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Prim.School Gr4-6(girls):Victims:excluded,ignored,spreaded rumor
100%
90%
80% 47.2
70%

41.6

44.2

42.6

45.5

40.9

43.1

39.8

45.4

44.0

42.8

38.1

32.5

29.7

31.4

30.4

32.2

30.7

31.1

28.4

30.9

29.4

35.2

10.0

14.7

12.7

13.7

11.5

15.4

13.2

15.6

13.5

12.9

14.1

16.1

11.3

11.2

13.3

12.3

12.6

11.5

13.1

13.5

12.7

12.1

13.8

10.6

60%
50%
40% 31.5
30%
20%
10%
0%

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1392 N=1371 N=1341 N=1353 N=1274 N=1281 N=1254 N=1272 N=1234 N=1254 N=1281 N=1288
1998

1999

2000

2001

43

2002

2003

ぜんぜん
never
今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a weekTransition of victimization rate in lower secondary school: 6 years 12 surveys (boys)

中学校１〜３年（男子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
J.Sec.School Gr7-9(boys):Victims:excluded,ignored,spreaded rumor
100%
90%
80%
70% 65.7
60%

62.8

65.2

59.7

64.5

63.6

63.2

62.9

65.9

63.0

59.9

65.7
ぜんぜん
never

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

24.4

25.8
5.7

5.7

5.7

4.3

23.2

27.6

6.4

5.3

22.8

23.1

23.5

23.4

7.3

7.2

7.1

7.2

8.3

5.5

5.4

6.2

6.2

5.5

22.0
7.6

23.5

24.1

8.1

8.8

5.4

4.5

24.4
5.7

7.3

4.3

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1414 N=1415 N=1444 N=1433 N=1453 N=1433 N=1424 N=1424 N=1400 N=1418 N=1336 N=1328
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term

2003

月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

Transition of victimization rate in lower secondary school: 6 years 12 surveys (girls)

中学校１〜３年（女子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
J.Sec.School Gr7-9(girls):Victims:excluded,ignored,spreaded rumor
100%
90%
80%
70%

55.6

58.4

56.7

56.7

54.3

55.1

52.9

56.1

55.7

56.7

49.9

54.5

60%

ぜんぜん
never

50%
40%
30%

31.5

29.0

30.3

30.9

30.4

31.2

31.0

29.3

29.1

28.5

20%
10%
0%

7.7

6.9

7.3

7.1

5.2

5.7

5.6

5.3

8.0

7.2

9.8

8.9

9.0

8.8

7.3

6.5

6.3

5.8

6.2

6.0

30.2

27.4

12.3

11.3

7.6

6.8

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1506 N=1477 N=1512 N=1511 N=1418 N=1425 N=1354 N=1354 N=1351 N=1357 N=1261 N=1244
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

Experiences of Victimizing Others Among Primary Children
TAKI: Now, this is the rate of the experiences of victimizing other children. This graph shows the rate ofboys in grade 4. Depending on the year, there are some increases and decreases, but it appears, the rate isfairly stable over the years. This is the graph of girls in primary school, and this is the boys in lower-secondary schools, and the girls in lower-secondary schools.

44

Presentation

Transition of victimizing rate in primary school: 6 years 12 surveys (boys)

小学校４〜６年（男子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Prim.School Gr4-6(boys):Bullies:excluding,ignoring,spreading rumor
100%
90%
80%
70%

53.0

48.5

53.4

47.9

58.0

51.3

58.3

54.4

58.8

56.4

58.8

55.9

60%

ぜんぜん
never

50%
40%
30%

32.2

34.1

32.5

34.2

10%

8.7

0%

6.1

28.7

32.3

28.8

29.9

28.0

29.1

26.6

28.5

10.8

7.8

6.6

6.3

11.5

8.7

11.1

8.6

10.9

7.1

9.6

8.5

9.4

6.4

4.5

5.3

4.4

4.8

6.1

4.9

6.1

6.1

20%

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1453 N=1459 N=1389 N=1391 N=1364 N=1374 N=1332 N=1319 N=1323 N=1340 N=1296 N=1303
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

Transition of victimizing rate in primary school: 6 years 12 surveys (girls)

小学校４〜６年（女子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Prim.School Gr4-6(girls):Bullies:excluding,ignoring,spreading rumor
100%
90%
80%

47.0

41.3

47.3

42.3

48.1

40.1

47.8

41.1

50.5

44.6

48.3

40.8

70%
60%

ぜんぜん
never

50%
40%

35.7

36.5

10.3
7.0

13.6

36.1

36.9

10.7
5.9

13.6

34.3

37.9

10.8
6.8

13.7

34.2

36.1

30.9

34.8

12.0
6.1

14.8

11.7

12.9

7.9

6.9

7.7

33.6

36.9

10.9
7.1

14.2

30%
20%
10%
0%

8.6

7.2

8.3

8.1

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1393 N=1371 N=1338 N=1353 N=1274 N=1285 N=1254 N=1273 N=1231 N=1254 N=1281 N=1266
1998

1999

2000

2001

45

2002

2003

今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a weekTransition of victimizing rate in lower secondary school: 6 years 12 surveys (boys)

中学校１〜３年（男子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
J.Sec.School Gr7-9(boys):Bullies:excluding,ignoring,spreading rumor
100%
90%
80%
70%

54.0

52.8

56.5

52.2

54.7

52.8

54.2

55.3

58.9

58.1

57.7

60.0

60%

ぜんぜん
never

50%
40%
30%

32.3

31.0

28.6

30.8

29.4

28.8

27.9

26.9

26.1

27.1

25.2

23.8

20%
10%

7.5

9.3

8.6

10.5

9.2

10.4

11.4

11.1

9.9

9.4

9.7

11.5

0%

6.2

6.9

6.3

6.5

6.7

8.0

6.5

6.7

5.2

5.4

7.3

4.7

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1414 N=1415 N=1444 N=1433 N=1453 N=1433 N=1424 N=1424 N=1400 N=1418 N=1336 N=1328
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

Transition of victimizing rate in lower secondary school: 6 years 12 surveys (girls)

中学校１〜３年（女子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
J.Sec.School Gr7-9(girls):Bullies:excluding,ignoring,spreading rumor
100%
90%
80%

40.6

44.0

42.1

42.6

41.1

39.6

40.9

45.4

48.2

50.6

44.0

46.9

39.3

38.1

35.4

36.0

36.8

38.4

37.4

33.9

32.6

28.8

32.5

31.4

10.9
7.0

12.2

13.0
8.5

13.2
8.9

12.9
9.2

12.1
9.6

12.4
8.3

10.4
8.9

12.9
7.7

13.8
9.7

13.8
7.8

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

12.8
10%
7.2
0%

10.3

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1449 N=1461 N=1391 N=1392 N=1365 N=1375 N=1332 N=1318 N=1323 N=1342 N=1229 N=1304
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

ぜんぜん
never
今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

So, over six years, you will find that the numbers are roughly the same. We see neither a substantial decrease nor increase, and thus, it seems that bullying could happen in any schools and in any classes. Of
course it’s a very delicate matter to say whether or not it is really occurring or there is a potential to occur,but I think we need to be prepared for the fact that there is always a risk for bullying to happen. We
should not believe that just because a group of children appears to be getting on well with each other,
there’s not going to be any bullying. We don’t know what could trigger the bullying. As I have shown you
a dozen of graphs, I think it’s very clear to everyone that bullying can happen at any school and in any
class.
But some people may ask mean questions. I’d like you to look at this 8.9 percent pointed by an arrow.

46

Presentation

Some people think that this 8.9 percent of children are the ringleaders, and what we should focus is toguide these children. This 8.9 percent is rather slight numbers, and when we calculate by classes, it includes about maybe two or three children per class. Then, there are always a few problematic children in
any class. So, some teachers may think bullying is a problem limited to those problematic children, andas long as you pay enough attention to those children, bullying may be resolved. That is a misconception
but is seen in many teachers. In other words, there’s a risk for us to incorrectly think that any schools canhave a bullying problem, but the children who actually conduct the bullying is always the same.
Transition of victimizing rate in lower secondary school: 6 years 12 surveys (girls)

中学校１〜３年（女子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
J.Sec.School Gr7-9(girls):Bullies:excluding,ignoring,spreading rumor
100%
90%
80%

40.6

44.0

42.1

42.6

41.1

39.6

40.9

45.4

48.2

50.6

44.0

46.9

39.3

38.1

35.4

36.0

36.8

38.4

37.4

33.9

32.6

28.8

32.5

31.4

10.9
7.0

12.2

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

12.8
7.2

10.3

13.0
8.5

13.2
8.9

12.9
9.2

12.1
9.6

12.4
8.3

10.4
8.9

12.9
7.7

13.8
9.7

13.8
7.8

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
N=1449 N=1461 N=1391 N=1392 N=1365 N=1375 N=1332 N=1318 N=1323 N=1342 N=1229 N=1304
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

ぜんぜん
never
今学期に2〜3回
2-3 a term
月に1〜2回
1-2 a month
週に1〜2回
1-2 a week

Recurrence Rate of High Frequency Bullying
TAKI: In other to clarify such misconceptions, we need to conduct this longitudinal study. This shows
the statistics of children who receive bullying at high frequency, that is more than once a week. The question is whether they are always the victims. If we look at six years at once, there is a transition of schools
from primary school to lower-secondary school, and this may things little too complicated. So, I’d like tostart with looking at grade 4 to grade 6, three years in primary school. If a particular child always conducts bullying, then this child would be doing bullying in grade 4, as well as in grade 5 and grade 6. Thus,
if we examine every year, this child should always be in a statistics. In other words, it can be hypothesizedthat if we ask this problematic child if he/she is bullying others, the child should always respond ‘Yes’ tothe question, as far as we assume there is a particular child who conducts bullying.
However, there are only 0.4 percent of children who responded that they bully others for all 6 surveys.
Again, when we calculate by classes, 0.4 percent out of 40 students in a classroom will be less than one
child per class, or we should even consider not by class but by year group or by school. In fact, most of thechildren are included those 19.7 percent which indicates children who bully others only once, once inthree years. Thus, as we have seen in the previous graphs, although the figures are fairly stable, the bullying is done by different children over the years.

47

Recurrence rate of victimization during 3 years in primary school 1 :6 surveys (boys and girls)

However, you may still think that this is the figure limited to those who bully with high frequency, onceor twice a week. In other words, you may think even for those with high frequency rate, they may bully a
lot at one time, and may not bully another time. Then, we should look at the figures without considering
the frequency. In other words, whether or not they have any experience of bullying others. The result isthis. Children who respond to bully others in all survey points, 6 out of 6, is 13.9 percent, and then there
are fairly equally divided for those who bully 5 out of 6 survey points, and 4 out of 6, 3 out of 6, 2 out of 6
and 1 out of 6 survey points. Again, you may think that this 13.9 percent of children who responded tobully others 6 out of 6 survey points are the regular bullies, and this may also lead to a an idea that there isa particular children who regularly bully other children. However, I’d like you to focus those 13.2 percent
of children. These children are the one who had no experience of being victimized at all for 3 years. In
other words, when we ignore the frequency rate, more than 85 percent of children had at least one experience of being victimized.
Recurrence rate of victimization during 3 years in primary school 2 :6 surveys (boys and girls)

48

Presentation

This means that it is not enough to pay attention to a particular child or a particular group of children,
but most children get bullied at least once, or for some children, may be twice or three times. When we
look at the rate for the lower-secondary school, although the frequency rate of bullying itself is smaller
than those of primary school, the trend is the same. Again, there are very few children who continuously
experienced high frequency bullying. When we look at the rate of experience without considering the frequencies, about 75 percent of children had at least one bullying experience during 3 years in lower-secondary school.
Recurrence rate of victimization during 3 years in lower secondary school: 6 surveys (boys and girls)

As for those who bully others, the figures are the same for both in primary school and in lower-secondary school.
Recurrence rate of victimizing during 3 years in primary school: 6 surveys (boys and girls)

49

Recurrence rate of victimization during 3 years in lower secondary school: 6 surveys (boys and girls)

Therefore, it is quite obvious that there is not a particular child. If there is a particular child, the figures
should look differently. These statistics clearly show that anyone can become a bully and can become victims. There may be some conspicuous characteristics of typical bullies or typical victims, but if we start topay attention only to those children, we cannot stop bullying.
Finally, I’d like to show you the figures for 6 years from primary to lower-secondary periods including 12
survey points. Regarding the experience of being victimized, it’s ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 percent. Thismeans that more than 90 percent of the children responded to have at least one experience of being victimized during 6 year survey period. As for those who bully others, the figures clearly show that high frequency bullying is not continuously conducted. Twelve out of 12 survey points is 0 percent, 11 out of 12
is 0, and 10 out of 12 is also 0 percent, and then 9 out of 12 is 0.1 percent. Thus, the cases that there is aseemingly problematic children and bullying is mostly done by those children are really rare. You may
probably think that although the number is small, there are 0.1 percent of such children, and what weshould do about them. Of course we have to provide educational guidance to those children, but what
I’m saying is that only focusing on such children does not eliminate bullying in school at all. You may beable to stop one case of bullying, but by identifying a specific child who is always a bully, we cannot solve
the problem of bullying as a whole.

50

Presentation

Recurrence rate of victimization during 6 years in primary and lower secondary school:12 surveys (boys and girls)

Recurrence rate of victimizing during 3 years in primary school: 3 years 6 surveys (boys and girls)

Well, the next question may be what we have done over six years. I’d like to make sure that the point
made by the Minister of Education that bullying could happen in any school, in any class, in any child, isvery much appropriate. However, because this is a sentence with such a good sound harmony, you may
just agree with the appeal without taking any notice on the real meaning of it. According to these figures,
however, it is quite clear that this minister’s words have truth. Although we successfully managed to decrease the number of bullying from the peak, there has not been much difference for last 5 or 6 years.
Therefore, I feel that this message of “any child” is not yet taken into consideration seriously enough, andas for the actions against bullying, we may still be trying to identify a particular child who appears to conduct bullying behaviours.

51

What is necessary then? From the results of this study, we can at least say that identifying special children
and giving guidance to them is not really an effective way of reducing bullying problem. I mean, that is
not the right approach. Instead, as we discussed in the previous session, all children should become agood constituent member of the community who is an independent and cooperative to other member ofthe community. Children should not be self-centered or ignorant to others, or having no interpersonal
relationships with others. If bullying is only for the problem of special children, then all we have to do is
to focus and improve the environment that make these children problematic. However, what we have to
do is, as Prof. Morita pointed out, to focus every single child with wider perspectives, and to enhancetheir sociality or social capacity.
Then what is sociality? Well, there is one more thing that we should take into consideration. The question is why ordinary children get involved in the bullying situation no matter either as bullies or victims.
Then, what we have to realize here is the fact that if there are no bullies, there will not be victims either.
Therefore, what we should focus is why children become bullies.
In the four-tiered structural theory of bullying, Prof. Morita pointed out the very important remarks that
there are not only victims and aggressors, but also reinforcers and onlookers. Those who categorized asreinforcers are particularly need attention as they are easily become bullies, or even without self-awareness, these children may already play a role of bullies. In other words, these children may be categorized
as reinforcer at one point, but at another point, they may become bullies.
Then, the next question come to my mind is what sort of children are reinforcing bullies and think thatit’s fun to bully others. In order to find an answer to these questions, I have made a stress theory. I am
planning to share with you the data of this stress theory, but beforehand, I would like to explain why we
had to survey the seventh graders.

52Presentation

The longitudinal survey that I just showed you has another objective. This graph may be difficult to understand, but this shows the figures for the fourth graders in 2001, and this is the figure for the fourth
graders in 2000. What I’m trying to show you is how children in a particular grade are changing during
the survey period. From these figures, even the year is different, there is a similar trend. I often hearteachers saying we have good children this year or children this year is not so good compared to children
in last year, but in fact, although there may be some fluctuation individually, the major trends are similar
for every years.

53

Transition by school year progress of victimization: from year 4 to year 9 (boys and girls)

同学年推移（男女）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口：週に１〜２回
Cohort(boys): Victims:excluded,ignored,spreaded rumor: 1-2 a week
16.0

01年小4
01 Gr414.000年小400 Gr412.0

99年小4
99 Gr4

10.0
8.0

98年小4
98 Gr4

6.0

98年小5
98 Gr5

4.0

98年小6
98 Gr62.0
0.0

6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
小4 Gr4

小5 Gr5

小6 Gr6

中1 Gr7

中2 Gr898年中1
98 Gr7中3 Gr9Transition by school year progress of victimizing others: from year 4 to year 9 (boys and girls)

同学年推移（男女）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口：週に１〜２回
Cohort(boys): Bullies:excluding,ignoring,spreading rumor: 1-2 a week
01年小4
01 Gr4

16.0
14.0

00年小4
00 Gr412.0

99年小4
99 Gr4

10.0
8.0

98年小4
98 Gr4

6.0

98年小5
98 Gr5

4.0
2.0

98年小6
98 Gr60.0
6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov 6月 Jun 11月 Nov
小4 Gr4

小5 Gr5

小6 Gr6

中1 Gr7

中2 Gr8中3 Gr998年中1
98 Gr7

Why Children Become Bullies
TAKI: As I am pointing out, what we should focus is children who bully others, and how these children
become bullies. In this perspective, the seventh grade appears to be the key grade, as children move on to
new environment, they may get too much stress with them. Thus, it seems fairly reasonable to target theseventh graders to examine the background reason why children become bullies.
First of all, I’d like to make clear that it is inappropriate to try to explain the background causes of bullying to family socioeconomic status or educational levels of parents, or in what community they live orwhether they own houses or not, all of which are often seen in the explanation by researchers in Western

54

Presentation

countries. The reason why I disagree with such social attribution theory is the fact that parents’ educational level does not change over the years, nor does families’ socioeconomic status. If these factors couldchange over the years, it is possible to be one of the causes, but in reality, these factors are fixed, and it israther difficult to explain this phenomenon with such fixed social attributes as bullying role is, on theother hand, changing over the years.

Stress Which Causes Bullying
TAKI: Then, when we consider the factors of children which change depending on the situation or theenvironment, it seems that bullying is related more with stress. This is the path-analysis of children’s
stress and its related factors. On the right-hand side, the purple area, which labelled as ‘Symptoms ofStress’ indicates the measures of stress of children. And, the orange area above the purple area indicates
whether or not children take aggressive actions. As stressors, there are study related, teachers related,
peers related, and family related factors. Regarding how these factors were selected, you can find a list ofquestions used in the questionnaires at the back of your reference materials. You can have a look at thesequestions later in your spare time, what I mean by ‘stressor’ is that maybe children are troubled by study,
or troubled with peers, or may be troubled with teachers. All these factors could be the cause of stress ofchildren. Furthermore, stress may usually be alleviated or be aggravated depending on individual’s attitudes and the availability of social support. There is competitive attitude at the top, and there are social
support from peers, families, and teachers at the bottom, right-hand side corner. This social support indicates whether parents understand a child or a teacher listening to a child seriously when troubled, or
peers who are encouraging. All these factors are indication of availability of social support for children in
the difficult times.
When we use these factors to conduct path-analysis, there is, for example, an effect of competitiveness attitudes on the stressors related to study, or this competitiveness could have direct impact on stress itself.
Furthermore, this stress from study is also reflected in the relationship with teachers, peers and families.
So this is how the graph would look like then. It could also be the case that unhealthy relationships withteachers and peers could lead children to bullying activities. And also, if you have a good relationshipwith the family, then various different stresses would be alleviated. It’s somewhat a little complicated,
well, let’s take the example of a teacher. The stress from teachers may be something like this, for example,
teachers sometimes get mad without asking the reason for the behaviour of the child. Now, if the relationship with teachers is going well, then the children don’t think the teacher is getting angry without asking reasons whatsoever. Although the teacher didn’t actually ask children why they behave in such a way,
the children will probably understand that the teacher is dares to be angry after understanding the feelings of them, and therefore, the stress of children will be alleviated. So, even experiencing the same situation, one child may understand as the teacher is angry because he/she is thinking about him/her, and another child may understand as the teacher is unfairly angry with him/her. You can find the same thingwith peers and families.

55

Thus, whether or not some of these factors directly lead to bullying or to stresses can be identified basedon this graph. As was mentioned in the keynote speech, there are things that teachers, schools and families can do to stop bullying, and indeed, establishing good relationships between children and families,
children and teachers and children and schools will in the long perspective, alleviate children’s inclination
toward bullying.
Now, having said all this, there is one cynical or ironical element. This is quite strange or peculiar, and issomewhat unique to Japan. If you have a good relationship with the family, then the relationship withthe teacher, on the other hand, deteriorates. The same trend can be found with the peer relationships.
For example, good relationship with peers leads to bad relationships with teachers. In the past, I was toldthat this is a counterculture. In other words, if the peer-to-peer relationship is very strong, then they develop an anti-teacher attitude, and if one member of a group of children got angry by teacher, yourfriends may actually aggravate the situation saying that, “Oh, the teacher is so bad.” Thus, there is a goodsocial support for children but this social support ironically given a negative influence to relationships
with teachers. Also, if you have strong family relationships, this actually translates into anti-teacher kindof attitudes. The mother may say, “Oh, my child is so good. Why doesn’t the teacher understand?” This
very unique phenomenon is something that is not seen outside Japan.
Now, I’d like to take a look at the some data from girls. As you can see, it’s fairly similar to the data fromboys. If you have competitive attitude, there is less stress towards teachers, and this may be because if you
have the competitiveness, you have to work hard, and as a result, the stress from the teacher is lessened.
This appears to me, reflections of the very Spartan type of relationship that we saw in Japan in the pasttime. You again find that personal relationships do alleviate stress and they offer social support, and if

56

Presentation

you have a high level of stress, then there is greater inclination toward bullying. Family relationships andthe relationship with teachers are again at odds, which is somewhat worrisome.

The Risk Factors That Leads to Bullying
TAKI: So far, I have tried to introduce to you the data relevant to Japan. The results over the last six years
indicate that in order to prevent bullying, it will be effective to reduce the risk factors. The risk factors forbullying are the stressors found in children’s daily lives, and so we should try to reduce such risk factors
for children. For example, teachers trying to soften their message to the children or trying to give a reason before scolding the children will lessen the stress of the children. Also, it’s necessary to develop intimate or strong relationships with children because such intimate relationships will work as social support
to the children which in turn reduce the stress of the children.
Thus, you might find the keynote speech by the MEXT too obvious, or might think that there is nothing
new. You might even felt that we’re simply preaching to the converted. But actually, these are very important messages which we need to bear in mind. Now one thing we must bear in mind is that there is a tendency for schools to blame families and for families to blame schools when something happens, and thathas been the typical type of story line brought forward by the mass media. However, this has to be overcome.
I think we all should have the common senses that no matter whether you are at school or at home, what
is bad is bad. In the past, mothers would actually tell their children off when the children were scolded atschools because there are common sense of good and bad between teachers and parents, but nowadays,57

mothers would blame schools to tell their children off. This may be a part of privatization in which diversification of sense of values gets more salient. However, within such social context, schools and families
must identify common values. In other words, bad behaviour must be interpreted as bad behaviour byboth teachers and families, and likewise, positive behaviours should be encouraged by schools as well as
by families. It is quite obvious that families and schools should not be in a confrontational relationship.
That is one of the results which we were able to draw as a conclusion as a result of this six-year survey.

■ Second Part: Cross-National Comparative Study on Bullying
Longitudinal Survey for one and a half of year
TAKI: When we have completed the six-year follow-up survey, we started wondering whether all thesefactors are unique to Japan. So, we have planned to develop this longitudinal study to carry out cross-national comparative study with Australia, South Korea, and Canada. We carried out a comparative longitudinal survey for one-and-a-half years. The methodology of this cross-national study was almost thesame to the one carried out in Japan, though the survey period was limited to one and a half years, andthe participants were limited to children in grade 5 and grade 7 in Japan, and those corresponding children in other countries. This was because there weren’t any school transitions from primary to secondary
during the research period.

58

Presentation

Now, why did we carry out this international comparison in the first place? In Japan, we were alreadyable to validate that serious bullying can happen to any school, any class and any child. And I believe thisis experience and knowledge that Japan should claim to the world. We needed to bring forward this message to the global community. In order to do so, we needed to identify first whether or not there are
unique characteristics of the situation in Japan. If that is the case, then we might have to identify someoriginal countermeasures. However, if there are commonalties in bullying across the countries, we might
be able to develop some new ideas together. In that sense, we feel that this is a phase which we would haveto overcome so that we can send the information to the world, and at the same time, we can correctly understand the situation in other countries.

59Regarding the international comparisons of bullying, as we talked about it during the dialog session earlier, we’ve already carried out in 1998 and 1999. In this cross-national study, Prof. Morita acted as aleader of the research team, and I was also a member of the research team. When we analyzed the datafrom this comparative survey in 98-99, we noticed some differences between Japan and other Westerncountries. In Western countries, physical violence such as punching and kicking was the key characteristics of bullying whereas in Japan, the word “ijime” doesn’t necessarily mean physical violence. As was
mentioned by Prof. Morita, “ijime” could includes physical force, verbal abuse, and some form of indirectmeans of aggression such as using the power of family status and so forth. So, bullying in Japan was
somewhat very complicated as the physical strength doesn’t necessarily required. Bullying in Japan can bedone even if one has very little physical strength. This is something that we understand and also our children understand.
I remember that we had an active debate regarding this issue with researchers in the West. From that experience, I have reached one conclusion that the term “bullying,” used in the Western countries could
primarily have an image of physical violence which done primarily by boys. If this is the case, then it isunderstandable that we have different opinions and attitudes towards bullying behaviour and its prevention and interventions. This difference could even affect the rate of frequencies of occurrence of bullying
in each country. If that’s the case, we cannot simply compare the data gathered in each country.
However, in fact, we don’t yet know whether this is just my personal opinion or is actually true. In otherwords, the difference found between Japan and the Western countries is just the result of the translation
problems or there are actually differences in nature and the extent of bullying behaviour. What we did in
the last comparative survey in 98-99 was to negotiate with our friends in Europe, primarily in Norway,

60

Presentation

but Western scholars sometimes rejected our request because they think what we claimed were just special cases unique to Japan. So, that was rather hard for us to carry out fully satisfactory study.
Furthermore, we found some significant differences from this study, but we actually not 100% sure if thiswas the true difference in nature of bullying or just the difference in terminology. In other words, although we translated the questionnaires very delicately in that study, at the end of the day, the term utilized in the questionnaire was “Did you bully others?” in Europe, “Did you do ijime to others?” in Japan.
Then, the difference in the image that the word ‘bullying’ and ‘ijime’ has still remained.
So, in order to avoid this difference of images of the word, what we did in this particular comparative
study this time was to take away the term “bullying” or “ijime” from the questionnaire. So, in an actual
questionnaire, children were asked, for example, “Have you experienced mean and negative behaviour at
the hands of other students?” At the end of this reference material, you will find some of the specific questions used in the questionnaire.
However, although we newly developed a questionnaire which avoids using the specific term such as ‘bullying’ or ‘ijime’, I personally feel that we did not create anything new. It’s a continuation of the bullyingrelated studies we carried out in the past. As we showed you the definition by Prof. Morita, we have hadsuch a definite conception on the issue of bullying. However, as we needed to get over this language barrier, we developed the questionnaire without using the specific term, and at the same time, we tried tomake the questionnaire that is easy to understand for children. Otherwise, how many data we gatheredinternationally, there will always be a language barrier, and the knowledge and experience of Japan will
not be understood correctly by people in Western countries. So, that is the one special feature of thiscross-national study.
There is another feature in this cross-national study that I have to explain. That is the fact that this is thelongitudinal study. Unless we use longitudinal data, some scholars still stress that bullying is an issue limited to a specific children, and we wanted to alleviate this type of sentiment.

61

As we are going to show you so many graphs that look very similar, I won’t cover all the graphs. I thinkfrom this point onwards we will have a very rough and very speedy presentation of the graphs, and we’ll
be inviting the other panellists to comment on after the relevant graphs are shown. Also, when I presented the longitudinal study in Japan earlier, we talked only about exclusion as it is one of the most typical type of bullying in Japan, but then in other countries, exclusion may not be a typical type of bullying,and so we will look at various different forms of bullying. We have data for bullies and victims for 6 different types of bullying, and so it’s a very voluminous work.
Now, let me explain how we should see the graphs. On the left-hand side you can find the data from primary school children, and on the right-hand side you can find the data from lower-secondary school children. And there are data from boys and girls, and the data from the first, second, and third survey points.
You can find boys’ data on the left-hand side, and girls’ data from right-hand side. Therefore, you canfind three graphs for primary boys, three graphs for primary girls, and three graphs for lower-secondaryboys, and three graphs for lower-secondary girls.

Experience of Victimization: Exclusion and Ignoring
Now, I’d like to begin with the data in Japan. You will find similar trends from the figures in the longitudinal study reported earlier. We see some increase in grade 8, and some increase toward grade 5, but
overall trend is very similar to the 6 year longitudinal study.

62

Presentation

Transition of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口Japan: Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
56.5

53.9

58.4

49.2

40.0

46.4

58.2

58.9

50.2

38.8

27.9

40.1

48.9

40.7

32.9
8.9

13.2

9.7

12.2

15.2

44.0

66.5

34.2

36.8

27.7

9.3

14.0

36.0

48.1

35.5
26.8

9.3

14.8

12.0

18.1

6.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=414 N=421 N=431 N=432 N=437 N=400 N=392 N=396 N=413 N=410 N=419
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Let’s move on to Australia. Would you like to make some comments about the situation in Australia
based on this graph? Oh, I totally forgot! My apologies. I have not introduced the speakers. I will covereach different country and then go back to Japan. We have Prof. Slee from Flinders University of South
Australia, Australia. Thank you very much, Prof. Slee. Prof. Hee-og Sim, Associate Professor from South
Korea, and Prof. Hymel from Canada. So can you introduce yourself and then make your comment?
Prof. Slee.

Phillip Slee: Australia
SLEE: I should first apologize. I have no expertise in Japanese, unlike Mr. Taki who is fluent in many
languages, I’m only fluent in Australian, so excuse that. I’d like to thank the organizers for the opportunity to be here today. It was a very kind invitation and it’s an honour to be able to spend a little bit of timewith you today.
My background in this is as a teacher, so I was teacher-trained and worked in schools, and then I wasworking as a researcher at my university where I’m involved in teacher training. I first came to Japan at
the invitation in 1996, and at that stage I met Prof. Morita and Mr. Taki. And at that point it became apparent that we had a great deal to learn from Japan and the initiatives that had already been undertaken,
as Prof. Morita has talked about. So it was a very rich opportunity to learn and to take some of that learning back to Australia. And since then, there have been some very useful collaboration with Japan and
Korea and Canada, and some very interesting learning, for me in particular around the issue of school
bullying. Some of that Mr. Taki has already talked about. But that’s enough by way of an introduction
for me I think. I could comment now on that first graph that Mr. Taki has presented.
From the Australian perspective, in the second graph, we can see that generally speaking, excluding andignoring is higher in primary school years. And that the girls engage in a little more of this than the boys.
So I’d like to stay with just that very broad comment at this stage and then hand that on. Thank you, Mr.
Taki.

63

Transition of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Australia: Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
62.3

77.8

31.9

17.5

5.8

4.8

71.9

64.4

61.0

49.0

64.3

81.5

45.1
21.1
7.0

25.4
10.2

28.8
10.2

29.1
5.9

13.0
5.6

65.5

57.0

64.0

58.0

29.3
5.2

6.6

35.6

28.0

7.4

8.0

38.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=69 N=63 N=57 N=59 N=59 N=51 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=135 N=50 N=50
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Hee-og Sim: Korea
Sim: Okay, my name is Hee-og Sim. I’m pleased to be here to talk about bullying and victimization
which has been a worldwide phenomenon. So let me explain my screen. As you can see, more than 70
percent of students had no experience of victimization through excluding and ignoring. And grade 5 andgrade 7 are quite similar in this screen.
Transition of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Korea: Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

79.2

72.7

78.6

75.3

17.9

18.2
19.5
2.6

75.0

7.8

19.2
24.7

23.7
1.3

79.5

3.6

0.0

1.3

85.2

13.9
0.8

79.7

17.2
3.1

83.3

14.5
2.2

78.7

18.9
2.5

82.4

時々
some time

25.2

16.0

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.8

1.7

73.9

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=73 N=71 N=84 N=80 N=75 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=122 N=116 N=115
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

64

Presentation

Shelley Hymel: Canada
HYMEL: I too would like to thank the organizers. I’m very honoured to be here as part of this initiative
to represent Canada. Bullying and victimization are recognized as problems around the globe, but for
Canada recognition of this as problem within our educational system has been more recent. And such
recognition has been born of tragedy (as was the case in Japan) with educational initiatives launched in
response to several untimely student deaths between 1997 and 2001. I am very grateful to be able to behere and learn from my colleagues who have studied it for so much longer than we have.
You’ll also notice in the graphs from Canada that the third time point of testing is not yet available. The
schools had asked us to postpone testing for a year because of, again, several very well-publicized bullying
incidents that happened in 2004. So we had to wait. So the last wave of dataset is coming any day now.
But right now, for these data you can see that bullying and victimization in the form of excluding and ignoring others is reported at very similar rates across both boys and girls and across grade levels. It appears to be somewhat higher than that which we see in other countries.
Transition of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Canada: Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
48.0

54.7

47.2

45.1

46.8

40.0

43.9
69.8

40.2

29.7

36.0

42.6

38.3

11.8

15.6

16.8

12.3

14.9

44.4

36.6
20.9

15.6

9.3

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

19.5

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimization: Teasing and Name-callingJapan
TAKI: In Japan, regarding teasing and name-calling, among girls, it seems less frequent in comparison to
exclusion, but more frequent among boys. But overall trend is fairly similar, and it seems that typical bullying in Japan is exclusion and teasing both of which is rather high.

65Transition of victimization rate (teasing / name calling): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口Japan: Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
56.3

53.5

55.9

55.4

53.3

57.1

59.0

50.9

53.6

58.2

49.8

50.8

32.5

33.7

28.3

33.9

33.9

29.9

29.8

37.7

30.3

32.6

40.9

35.4

11.2

12.9

15.9

10.6

12.9

13.1

11.3

11.4

16.1

9.2

9.3

13.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=412 N=420 N=431 N=432 N=436 N=400 N=392 N=398 N=413 N=411 N=419
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: In Australia it’s a little different in the sense that for teasing and name-calling we seem to get moreof that amongst girls, particularly amongst the younger girls.
Transition of victimization rate (teasing / name calling): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口Australia: Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
51.4

66.7

58.6

23.8

29.3

9.5

12.1

28.6
20.0

47.5

56.9

47.1

44.1

47.8

50.7

58.0

56.0

37.5

34.0

42.0

11.8

8.0

2.0

74.1

35.6

27.6

45.1

41.2

7.8

11.0

45.8
14.8

16.9

15.5

11.1

10.2

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58 N=59 N=58 N=51 N=181 N=54 N=59 N=136 N=50 N=50
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: More students from my country were more likely to be involved in victimization through teasing
and calling names than by excluding and ignoring. Among elementary students, there was no significant
difference between gender and also no significant difference compared to lower-secondary children.

66

Presentation

Transition of victimization rate (teasing / name calling): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口
Korea: Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
64.9

56.6

29.9

27.6

5.2

15.8

62.7

59.5

60.0

68.4

30.7

27.4

35.0

29.1

6.7

13.1

5.0

2.5

59.0

32.0
9.0

57.8

36.7
5.5

77.5

17.4
5.1

63.1

69.7

27.9

27.7

9.0

2.5

78.2

16.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

5.9

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=72 N=70 N=84 N=79 N=76 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=122 N=116 N=115
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada we find that verbal as well as relational victimization are the most common forms
reported, and again in this graph we see that reported rates of victimization by verbal teasing and namecalling are consistent across grade levels and across both boys and girls.
Transition of victimization rate (teasing / name calling): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口
Canada: Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
42.5

40.9

46.1

40.6

37.6

48.0

45.9

40.2

38.3

37.8

46.3
62.8

31.9

42.2

31.7
25.6

16.5

29.8
13.3

14.4

13.9

20.0

11.6

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

22.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimization: Pushing, Hitting, Kicking Jokingly
Japan
TAKI: Next, pushing, hitting, kicking jokingly. This can be understood as an intentional playful hitting.

67

The ratio is very low. Although during primary school, it is slightly high, in secondary school, this type ofphysical bullying is much lower, especially among girls. This may be common sense in Japan. As forother countries?
Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴るJapan: Victims:pushing,hitting (jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
65.9

62.7

64.9

25.5

27.8

23.4

8.6

9.6

11.7

70.4

67.6

74.0

67.4

23.8

24.9

16.8

25.6

5.8

7.5

9.3

7.0

62.8

58.9

80.3

76.5

20.6

27.1

26.9

16.0

10.1

14.2

3.6

79.3

2.9

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

14.6
6.1

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=411 N=420 N=431 N=430 N=437 N=399 N=392 N=410 N=411 N=396 N=417
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: At Taki’s initiative we have included hitting and kicking in a joking manner and we wouldn’t normally do that in an Australian context. So what we found was some new and interesting data as a result.
So in Australia the figure is higher amongst the boys, especially the older boys in secondary school. So insecondary school it’s year 8 and a little older, so these students are about 12 to 13 years, so they engage inthis behaviour a little more frequently than others do.
Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Australia: Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%

26.4
80%

45.7

52.4

43.1

60%

42.6

66.1

62.7

41.4

32.2

37.3

35.3

20%

12.9

1.7

8.5

2.0

44.8
39.7
7.9

12.1

41.9

48.0

34.0

ぜんぜん
never
時々
some time

50.5

40%

0%

54.2

29.3

48.3
35.2

23.1

22.2

22.4

51.5

40.0

58.0

6.6

12.0

8.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58 N=59 N=59 N=51 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=136 N=50 N=50
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

68

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Korea
SIM: In Korea, jokingly pushing or hitting happened a lot, compared with the previous one. And males
and females looked quite similar, and grade 5 and grade 7 also looked quite similar. This type of victimization is the most commonly-reported in Korea.
Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Korea: Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

44.2

27.3

63.6

31.6

47.4

50.6
5.2

32.1

27.8

26.2

27.1

47.0

58.0

54.4

57.4

21.0

6.0

9.9

17.7

16.4

39.9

36.9

53.5

47.0
9.1

ぜんぜん
never

19.4

37.0

47.9

42.8

50.8

47.1

31.1

17.4

12.3

16.0

21.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=73 N=71 N=83 N=80 N=76 N=122 N=117 N=115 N=122 N=116 N=115
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada, physical victimization in general is reported more by boys than by girls, and it tends
to be somewhat higher especially among boys as they move from primary to secondary school. This is especially true when they describe this behaviour as something that’s “just joking”.
Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Canada: Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

37.0

32.8

44.8

43.4

25.5

ぜんぜん
never

15.6
41.9

31.7
時々
some time

48.9
46.8
44.9

50.0

18.1

17.2

45.6

9.6

44.3

12.3

41.9

27.7

35.6

16.3

39.0

29.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

69

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Experience of Victimization: Hitting and Kicking
Japan
TAKI: On the theme of pushing, hitting and kicking, it is not joking but more violent. In the case of elementary school, the ratio may be somewhat higher, and in secondary school, they do occur but at a lower
rate, especially among girls. As for other countries?
Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴るJapan: Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

76.4

75.5

75.2

82.4

83.0

85.2

84.5

76.3

73.3

92.0

88.0

89.2

18.3
16.9
6.7

20.9
3.6

17.0
7.8

13.7

14.8

10.6

12.5

3.9

2.3

4.2

3.0

18.5
5.3

6.3
8.2

1.7

9.8

7.8

2.2

3.1

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=409 N=420 N=430 N=429 N=437 N=400 N=390 N=396 N=413 N=410 N=416
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Austlaria
SLEE: - talked about before, the general perception is that physical bullying is more frequent in someWestern countries, so what we found in Australia was that there did tend to be a tendency for it to occur
more frequently, particularly amongst the younger boys.

70

Presentation

Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Australia: Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

64.3

27.1
8.6

73.0

22.2
4.8

81.0

10.3
8.6

84.7

15.3
0.0

93.2

5.1
1.7

93.9

68.3

25.1
6.1
0.0

6.6

92.6

5.6
1.9

76.3

22.0
1.7

89.0

10.3
0.7

96.0

2.0
2.0

94.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

6.0
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58 N=59 N=59 N=49 N=182 N=54 N=59 N=136 N=50 N=50
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: Okay, in my country, hitting or pushing on purpose is quite low. Looking at the females, females
have less experience than males in both elementary school and secondary schools.
Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Korea: Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

81.8

16.9
1.3

70.1

23.4
6.5

80.3

11.8
7.9

94.0

6.0
0.0

87.7

88.6

11.1

10.1

1.2

1.3

76.2

19.7
4.1

72.7

84.1

25.0

15.2

2.3

0.7

89.3

39.0

95.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

9.8

10.2

0.8

0.8

4.2
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=73 N=71 N=84 N=80 N=76 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=122 N=115 N=115
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada, as before with physical victimization that was only done jokingly, purposeful physical victimization is typically more frequently reported by boys than girls, and is especially low as girls
move into the secondary school age group. Although the majority of students report no purposeful physical victimization, this remains the form that is of greatest concern to school administrators and teachers.

71

Transition of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Canada: Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

59.1

60.9

64.8

71.3

66.0

62.2

33.9

31.3

26.4

23.8

29.8

33.3

7.1

7.8

8.8

4.9

4.3

4.4

88.4

時々
some time

92.7

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

9.3

4.9

2.3

2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimization: Taking Money
Japan
TAKI: From now on, whether this can be included in the category of bullying depending on your image.
This involves taking money, tearing notebooks, or stealing the pocket money. In an aggressive case, thismay be extortion, rather than bullying, but this is the result of asking children if they get any of these behaviours. The ratio is low although we shouldn’t take it too easily, lower than other events.
Transition of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Japan: Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

84.2

86.1

86.0

85.6

85.0

85.2

13.9

11.5

10.8

12.8

13.6

13.1

1.9

2.4

3.2

1.6

1.4

1.8

90.2

87.6

85.6

8.3

11.4

10.7

1.5

1.0

3.7

92.8

90.4

7.0

9.4

0.2

0.2

86.4

11.5

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2.1

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=417 N=409 N=421 N=429 N=429 N=436 N=393 N=391 N=397 N=413 N=409 N=418
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Austlaria
SLEE: - and in Australia it looks as though the figure is higher amongst the older boys, so their tendency

72

Presentation

is to damage and remove and take others’ properties a little more than the younger children do.
Transition of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Australia: Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
72.9

66.7

74.1

72.9

78.0

76.5

4.3

4.8

74.1

24.1

27.1

1.7

0.0

22.0

23.5

0.0

0.0

45.8

22.2
4.9

67.4

76.0

74.0

49.2

36.3

28.6
22.9

58.8

3.7

5.1

31.9

24.0

26.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58 N=59 N=59 N=51 N=181 N=54 N=59 N=135 N=50 N=50
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: More than 75 per cent of students didn’t have this kind of victimization. The quota is similar to
Japan in this type of victimization. Females look less involved in this kind of victimization too.
Transition of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Korea: Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
88.0

84.4

84.2

89.3

88.9

83.5

83.6

76.0

85.5

90.9

86.6

89.1

21.7
10.7
1.3

15.6

14.5

0.0

1.3

10.7
0.0

11.1
0.0

15.2

14.8

1.3

1.6

13.0
2.3

1.4

8.3
0.8

12.6

10.1

0.8

0.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=75 N=73 N=71 N=84 N=80 N=76 N=122 N=117 N=115 N=121 N=116 N=115
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada, victimization through theft and property damage seems to be fairly stable over time,
but somewhat higher for boys than girls as they move towards the end of the elementary years.

73

Transition of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Canada: Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
62.2

63.3

30.7

25.0

7.1

60.0

70.5

66.0

34.4

29.8

25.4
5.6

11.7

4.1

4.3

60.0

76.7

時々
some time

80.5

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

31.1
8.9

20.9

17.1

2.3

2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimization: Using E-mailJapan
TAKI: I think this is used as a survey item for the first time in Japan. There is new modus operandi ofbullying but the ratio is very low. Among other items, it is the lowest, but in secondary school girls, bullying using emails or mobile text messaging may be starting to use as a way of bullying.
Transition of victimization rate (using computers / telephones): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話でJapan: Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

96.4

2.9
0.7

96.4

2.7
1.0

96.6

1.8
1.6

94.9

3.9
1.2

93.9

5.4
0.7

95.4

3.8
0.9

94.5

4.5
1.0

94.2

5.1
0.8

92.5

92.5

92.3

91.1

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

5.7
1.7

6.8
0.7

7.2
0.5

7.0
1.9

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=408 N=420 N=432 N=432 N=436 N=399 N=391 N=396 N=413 N=411 N=418
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Austlaria
SLEE: In Australia, the incidence is very low, as you can see from the graph. There may be a slight tendency for it to be a little higher in secondary school where they typically have access more to texts andemail facilities.

74

Presentation

Transition of victimization rate (using computers / telephones): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話でAustralia: Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

95.7

4.3
0.0

90.5

93.0

89.8

89.8

90.2

89.0

9.5

7.0

10.2

8.5

7.8

9.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

2.0

1.1

92.6

3.7
3.7

94.9

86.7

5.1

11.1

0.0

2.2

93.9

6.1
0.0

98.0

2.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=57 N=59 N=59 N=51 N=181 N=54 N=59 N=136 N=49 N=49
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: Yes, as you can see, not so many students were involved in this type of victimization. This is theleast frequent victimization type in my country like other countries.
Transition of victimization rate (using computers / telephones): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話で
Korea: Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

98.7

97.4

1.3

1.3

0.0

1.3

89.5

10.5
0.0

96.4

2.4
1.2

93.8

4.9
1.2

93.6

95.1

94.6

3.8

4.1

2.6

3.9

0.8

1.6

97.8

89.3

97.5

2.2

9.8

2.5

0.0

0.8

0.0

95.0

5.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=73 N=71 N=84 N=80 N=75 N=122 N=117 N=115 N=122 N=116 N=115
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada, we refer to this as “cyber-bullying” and it’s receiving increasing attention over thelast three or four years. Although reported rates are typically low relative to other forms of bullying, they
are consistent across ages and across both boys and girls. And in the last two or three years we’ve seen aslight increase as this becomes a popular mode for students.

75Transition of victimization rate (using computers / telephones): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話で
Canada: Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

86.6

11.0
2.4

87.5

83.2

7.0
5.5

82.0

80.9

77.8

12.8

13.9

17.0

17.8

4.0

4.1

2.1

4.4

90.7

9.3
0.0

時々
some time

68.3

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

24.4
7.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimizing Others: Ignoring and Exclusion
TAKI: We looked at the victimization rate for six types of bullying in each country.
Now we will look at the victimizing rate. As for the victimizing rate, there has to be an aggressor in orderfor victims to be there, and so I personally think the victimizing rate is more important. Basically, exclusion happens more in girls than boys. And in secondary school the ratio does not necessarily increase,
but it does not decline either.
Transition of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口Japan: Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
61.9

59.9

33.1

34.7

5.0

5.5

63.5

51.5

43.2

43.3

49.9

46.6

42.6

29.7
5.3
6.8

6.8
10.8

62.1

48.9

53.7

44.0

34.7

44.3

35.6

47.8

6.9

10.6

8.2

3.2

34.0

42.6

時々
some time

56.0

46.8

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

10.0

10.5

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=421 N=438 N=433 N=443 N=453 N=401 N=393 N=404 N=414 N=418 N=427
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

76

Presentation

Australia
SLEE: In Australia, similar to Japan, the rate is relatively stable, but it may be that there’s a little more ofit amongst the older students in school, particularly the boys.
Transition of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Australia: Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

80.3

81.3

77.2

19.7

15.6

19.3

0.0

3.1

3.5

81.0

19.0
0.0

75.9

72.5

84.9

22.4

27.5

14.5

1.7

0.0

0.6

90.9

7.3
1.8

71.9

76.9

76.0

73.5

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

28.1

22.3

24.0

26.5

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=66 N=64 N=57 N=58 N=58 N=51 N=179 N=55 N=57 N=130 N=50 N=49
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: There are no big differences for victimization. Males from grade 7 will likely to be less involved inbullying through excluding and ignoring than grade 5.
Transition of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Korea: Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
83.1

70.1

80.3

15.6

29.9

18.4

1.3

0.0

1.3

85.9

11.8
2.4

81.5

84.8

84.3

16.0

15.2

12.4

2.5

0.0

3.3

90.0

8.5
1.5

93.4

5.9
0.7

84.3

86.2

88.1

13.2

12.9

11.0

2.5

0.9

0.8

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=77 N=76 N=85 N=81 N=79 N=121 N=130 N=136 N=121 N=116 N=118
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

77時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

CanadaHYMEL: Bullying through exclusion and ignoring in Canada is something we refer to as relational or social bullying. It’s fairly consistent across boys and girls, but in this graph you can see it appears somewhat
higher in grade 7 than in grade 5.
Transition of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Canada: Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
75.6

19.7
4.7

71.9

21.9
6.3

77.6

78.7

17.2

57.4

1.6

72.1

42.6

20.8
4.1

68.9

0.0

26.7

25.6

4.4

2.3

65.9

時々
some time

31.7

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimizing Others: Teasing and Name-callingJapan
TAKI: Regarding teasing and name-calling, the victimization rate was about the same across the board. It
seems that bullying with this type happens more in boys. Maybe there are more mischievous boys who
try to bully other children with words.

78

Presentation

Transition of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口Japan: Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
69.0

66.0

60.9

26.2

29.5

31.1

4.8

4.5

8.0

76.6

20.8
2.5

71.3

71.5

70.4

24.9

22.7

26.8

3.8

5.7

2.8

56.5

37.9
5.6

55.7

34.6
9.7

75.4

21.3
3.4

68.6

71.2

27.8

23.4

3.6

5.4

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=420 N=437 N=432 N=442 N=453 N=399 N=393 N=402 N=414 N=417 N=427
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: And similar to Japan, it seems that it’s a more common form of bullying amongst the boys, andperhaps the older boys engage in this behaviour a little more.
Transition of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口Australia: Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

72.7

68.8

22.7

28.1

4.5

3.1

61.4

35.1
3.5

70.7

74.1

72.5

62.0

78.2

50.9

71.0

80.0

69.4

45.6
29.3

24.1

27.5

36.9

0.0

1.7

0.0

1.1

25.2

18.2
3.6

3.5

3.8

20.0
0.0

30.6

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=66 N=64 N=57 N=58 N=58 N=51 N=178 N=55 N=57 N=131 N=50 N=49
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: In Korea, this type of bullying happens more than bullying by excluding and ignoring. As you cansee, among both boys and girls, the rate is higher for lower-secondary children.

79Transition of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口
Korea: Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

73.3

22.7
4.0

54.5

40.3
5.2

73.7

72.9

63.7

75.6

70.8

66.9

24.2

30.0

35.0
22.4

22.4

3.9

4.7

20.5
1.3

3.8

5.0

3.1

82.4

70.2

70.1

14.7

25.6

27.4

2.9

4.1

2.6

86.4

11.9

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1.7

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=75 N=77 N=76 N=85 N=80 N=78 N=120 N=130 N=136 N=121 N=117 N=118
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: Reports of verbal bullying in Canada are fairly stable across the year, but in this sample it seems
to be reported most often by grade 7 boys, but I would need a larger sample to determine whether this is aconsistent finding.
Transition of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口
Canada: Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
62.2

64.1

33.9

31.3

3.9

4.7

72.0

70.5

24.8

24.6

3.2

4.9

55.3

40.0

69.8

65.9

25.6

31.7

40.0
36.2
20.0
8.5

4.7

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128 N= N=125 N=122 N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimizing Others: Pushing, Hitting Jokingly.
Japan
TAKI: Earlier, in Japan we saw a very small rate of victimization in pushing, hitting jokingly. We see that
this occurs during high school and more so in boys.

80Presentation

Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴るJapan: Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
77.3

20.3
2.4

72.4

24.3
3.3

73.7

20.1
6.2

83.3

82.4

83.6

13.2

16.3

13.3

3.5

1.4

3.1

74.0

63.9

67.0

24.5

31.0

25.3

1.5

5.1

7.7

88.2

87.8

88.7

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

10.4

10.5

10.4

1.4

1.7

0.9

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=419 N=420 N=438 N=432 N=443 N=452 N=400 N=393 N=403 N=414 N=418 N=425
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: This was also, as was said before, a really interesting category that we hadn’t researched before, andin Australia it seems that engaging in the bullying in a joking fashion and just pretending that it’s only
just fooling around or joking, is higher, particularly amongst the older boys. So that’s something that
we’re going to have to have a more serious look at I think.
Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Australia: Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

54.5

47.4
59.4

30.7
67.2

72.4

64.7

50.9

7.6

37.5
3.1

45.6

31.0

7.0

1.7

22.4
5.2

50.8

32.7

46.2

35.3
0.0

10.6

66.0

49.4

時々
some time

49.1

58.7
37.9

ぜんぜん
never

28.1

16.4

22.8

3.1

51.0
26.0
8.0

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=66 N=64 N=57 N=58 N=58 N=51 N=179 N=55 N=57 N=130 N=50 N=49
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: Yes, in Korea this is the most commonly reported type of bullying. Like victimization rate, they arealmost the same across grade and gender.

81

Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Korea: Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

42.1

53.9

3.9

35.1

59.7

44.7

49.4

50.6

35.5
40.0
19.7

5.2

39.5

32.9

10.6

51.9

8.6

16.5

29.2

ぜんぜん
never

26.2
41.2

60.0

65.4

10.8

8.5

41.9

16.9

39.7

52.9

7.4

36.8
47.1

49.6

13.7

31.1

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

21.8

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=76 N=77 N=76 N=85 N=81 N=79 N=120 N=130 N=136 N=121 N=117 N=119
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: Boys in Canada are much more likely to report physical bullying of others, and it seems especially true as they get older and especially if it’s just joking around.
Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Canada: Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

47.2

43.0

66.4

63.9

34.0

ぜんぜん
never

20.0
48.8

41.5

時々
some time

31.7

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

46.7
44.1

46.8

43.0
29.6

8.7

14.1

4.0

41.9
27.0
9.0

19.1

33.3

26.8
9.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimizing Others: Pushing and Hitting
Japan
TAKI: Now turning to pushing and hitting on purpose. I think there is a higher percentage among boys
which is something we expected.

82

Presentation

Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴るJapan: Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
時々
some time
88.6

83.0

15.1

87.6

10.2

9.6

1.2

2.7

1.9

92.4

6.3
1.4

92.3

7.5
0.2

93.4

4.6
2.0

91.7

82.2

16.0
7.3
1.0

1.8

80.6

15.1
4.2

95.4

3.9
0.7

94.3

4.8
1.0

95.1

4.4
0.5

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=418 N=437 N=432 N=442 N=453 N=398 N=393 N=403 N=414 N=418 N=426
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: - is similar to Australia but it’s interesting that perhaps it’s higher amongst the younger boys, sothat’s something that we maybe need to look at more carefully.
Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Australia: Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
84.1

85.9

12.7

12.5

3.2

1.6

82.5

96.6

96.6

98.0

90.4

98.2

15.8
1.8

80.7

93.2

100.0

97.9

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

19.3
3.4
0.0

3.4
0.0

2.0
0.0

9.6
0.0

1.8
0.0

0.0

時々
some time

6.8
0.0

0.0
0.0

2.1
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=63 N=64 N=57 N=58 N=58 N=50 N=177 N=55 N=57 N=132 N=50 N=48
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Korea
SIM: Yes, in Korea it looks quite low, but males from grade 5 bullied others by pushing or hitting on
purpose more than others.

83Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Korea: Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

78.9

75.3

19.7

23.4

1.3

78.9

90.1

87.3

85.8

17.1
3.9

1.3

92.9

7.1
0.0

7.4
2.5

84.4

11.4

11.7

14.8

1.3

2.5

0.8

92.6

95.8

92.2

94.9

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

5.1
2.2

4.2
0.0

7.8
0.0

5.1
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=76 N=77 N=76 N=84 N=81 N=79 N=120 N=128 N=136 N=120 N=116 N=118
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: Boys in Canada are again reporting more purposeful, physical bullying of others than girls, andby grade 7 the reported rates for girls are extremely low.
Transition of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Canada: Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
75.6

75.0

88.8

87.7

74.5

60.0

97.7

95.1

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

21.3
21.3

21.9

3.1

3.1

33.3
9.6
1.6

10.7
1.6

4.3

時々
some time

0.0
2.3

6.7

2.4
2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Experience of Victimizing Others: Taking Money
Japan
TAKI: Yes, of course the victimization rate was very low, and the same applies to the victimizing rate interms of taking and damaging property. In Japan, bullying and school violence are separated. I think
there is a sense that you do not allow physical violence. In particular, the teachers cannot ignore physical84

Presentation

violence at school. However, in the case of teasing and exclusion, it’s very difficult to intervene for theteachers. But clearly the victimizing rate for taking or damaging property is low.
Transition of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Japan: Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

94.5

95.0

96.3

97.2

96.8

97.3

96.5

94.1

93.0

98.8

97.1

97.9

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

5.2
0.2

4.5
0.5

2.1
1.6

2.1
0.7

3.2
0.0

2.7
0.0

3.0
0.5

5.6
0.3

6.0
1.0

1.2
0.0

2.6
0.2

1.6
0.5

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=418 N=436 N=432 N=442 N=452 N=397 N=392 N=400 N=414 N=417 N=426
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: It seems that bullying others by damaging property is a little higher in Australia and it’s a little
higher as it appears amongst the older boys, so it seems that maybe the older boys are engaging in this behaviour.
Transition of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Australia: Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

92.4

89.1

94.7

96.6

96.6

100.0

90.5

89.1

80.7

91.6

94.0

93.9

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

19.3
6.1
1.5

9.4
1.6

3.5
1.8

2.4
0.0

3.4
0.0

0.0
0.0

9.5

10.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.4
0.0

6.0
0.0

6.1
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=66 N=64 N=57 N=58 N=58 N=51 N=179 N=55 N=57 N=131 N=50 N=49
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

85時々
some time

KoreaSIM: Yes, in Korea this type of bullying has not happened much, but it appeared that mainly boys did
this type of bullying a little more.
Transition of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Korea: Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

96.0

88.2

90.8

97.6

97.5

94.9

89.1

90.8

98.5

97.5

93.1

100.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.0
0.0

11.8
0.0

6.6
2.6

2.4
0.0

2.5
0.0

5.1
0.0

10.9
0.0

8.5
0.8

0.7
0.7

2.5
0.0

6.9
0.0

0.0
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=75 N=76 N=76 N=85 N=81 N=79 N=119 N=130 N=136 N=121 N=116 N=118
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada, students generally report very low rates relative to other forms of bullying throughtheft or property damage, and these rates are fairly consistent across genders and ages.
Transition of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Canada: Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
時々
some time
91.3

5.5
3.1

87.5

93.6

94.3

93.6

82.2

90.7

92.7
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

7.8
4.7

5.6
0.8

4.9
0.8

6.4
0.0

11.1
6.7

9.3
0.0

7.3
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

86Presentation

Experience of Victimizing Others: Using E-mailJapan
TAKI: Earlier we talked about access to computers and telephones. The rate is very low, however, there
is a higher percentage of victimizing among the secondary schools. And also I think males tend to be theaggressors. Maybe the men are more apt to use PCs.
Transition of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Japan)

日本：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話でJapan: Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

97.6

1.9
0.5

97.6

1.7
0.7

98.6

0.7
0.7

98.6

0.9
0.5

98.4

1.1
0.5

97.8

2.2
0.0

97.2

2.5
0.3

95.8

3.6
0.5

93.9

5.3
0.8

98.3

96.6

97.4

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1.7
0.0

3.1
0.2

2.1
0.5

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=45 N=413 N=432 N=429 N=442 N=448 N=394 N=384 N=393 N=412 N=415 N=421
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

Australia
SLEE: Perhaps. It’s similar in Australia as well. It seems that although it’s very low it does occur, perhaps a little more amongst the older children.
Transition of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones): 1.5 years 3 surveys (Australia)

オーストラリア：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話でAustralia: Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
97.0

3.0
0.0

93.8

4.7
1.6

91.2

8.8
0.0

93.1

6.9
0.0

94.8

5.2
0.0

92.2

7.8
0.0

92.7

6.7
0.6

96.4

3.6
0.0

94.7

5.3
0.0

91.7

8.3
0.0

96.0

4.0
0.0

98.0

週に1回以上more thanonce/w
2.0
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=66 N=64 N=57 N=58 N=58 N=51 N=179 N=55 N=57 N=132 N=50 N=49
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

87時々
some time

KoreaSIM: In Korea, again, this is the least frequent type of bullying, fortunately, so far.
Transition of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones): 1.5 years 3 surveys (South Korea)

韓国：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話で
Korea: Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

98.7

1.3
0.0

97.4

2.6
0.0

93.4

5.3
1.3

96.5

96.2

96.2

95.8

96.9

97.8

94.2

100.0

99.2

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

3.5
0.0

3.8
0.0

1.3
2.5

2.5
1.7

3.1
0.0

2.2
0.0

5.0
0.8

0.0
0.0

0.8
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=76 N=76 N=85 N=79 N=79 N=120 N=130 N=136 N=121 N=116 N=118
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

CanadaHYMEL: In Canada the reported rates of bullying others through the electronic media are slightly lower
among girls than boys, but I would have to comment that in other samples and other schools, we havefound occasionally that there are certain schools in which this is actually much higher. So rates may varyin terms of the community support or viability of doing it.
Transition of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones): 1 year 2 surveys (Canada)

カナダ：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話で
Canada: Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

92.1

5.5
2.4

91.4

4.7
3.9

94.4

5.6
0.0

92.6

7.4
0.0

89.4

10.6

88.9

6.7
4.4

0.0

97.7

2.3
0.0

87.8

9.8
2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
N=125 N=122
N=
N=47 N=45
N=
N=43 N=41
N=
男子 boy女子 Girl
男子 boy女子 Girl
小5 Grade5

中1 Grade7

88時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Significant Difference Between 4 Countries
TAKI: Thank you for your patience. So it’s been quite a job taking a look at all of these data from comparative studies. I wish we could take more time to discuss in detail, but we just show you some basic differences among as well as some basic similarities among the countries here. So let me try to provide some
wrap-up up until this point.

The Least Frequent Type of Bullying
TAKI: In terms of comparison among the four countries, we find some similarities, although there aredifferences in degrees. You might take comfort from the fact that the situation in Japan is better thanother countries or you might be surprised by the differences. Some of the major similarities are as follows.
The least form of experienced bullying is the one by computers and telephones.
If we take a look at the significant differences among countries, there are number of significant differences. For example, if we take a look at primary school boys, we see some differences. In the case of secondary schools, girls only appear in the second rank.

Let’s take a look at this chart. This is the modified version of the graph which indicates the grade 5 children among the four countries. As you can see, it is quite obvious that Japan and Korea seem very low,
but the question is, statistically speaking, if there is a significant difference between the two countries.

89

Comparison of victimization rate (using computers / telephones)

小５（男子）：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話で
Grade5(boy): Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

96.4

2.9
0.7

96.4

2.7
1.0

96.6

1.8
1.6

95.7

4.3
0.0

90.5

9.5

93.0

7.0
0.0

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=408 N=420 N=70 N=63 N=57
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

98.0

97.4

1.3
1.3

1.3
0.0

89.5

10.5
0.0

86.6

11.0

87.5

7.0
5.5

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2.4

1回目
1st
N=77

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaIf we take a look at it, you will find that there are no major significant differences among the four countries. The most salient difference was found among girls in grade 5. This is the data for grade 7 boys andgirls. The second data from Canada seems somewhat large, but then we won’t know until we take a lookat the data from the third survey point, and we’ll have to wait and see whether or not this number will actually increase the third time.
Comparison of victimization rate (using computers / telephones)

小５（女子）：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話で
Grade5(girl): Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
94.9

3.9
1.2

93.9

5.4
0.7

95.4

3.8
0.8

89.8

89.8

96.4

2.4
1.2

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=432 N=432 N=436 N=59 N=59 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

0.0

93.8

4.9
1.2

7.8
2.0

10.2

8.5
1.7

90.2

93.6

3.8
2.6

82.0

時々
some time

12.8

13.9

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.0

4.1

83.2

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=75 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada90

Presentation

Comparison of victimization rate (using computers / telephones)

中１（男子）：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話で
Grade7(boy): Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

94.5

94.2

92.5

89.0

92.6

94.9

95.1

94.6

97.8

80.9

77.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.5
1.0

5.1
0.8

5.7
1.7

9.9

3.7
3.7

1.1

5.1
0.0

4.1
0.8

3.9
1.6

2.2
0.0

17.0
2.1

17.8
4.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=399 N=391 N=396 N=181 N=54 N=59 N=122 N=177 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (using computers / telephones)

中１（女子）：いじめ被害：パソコン・電話で
Grade7(girl): Victims:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

92.5

92.3

91.1

86.7

11.1

93.9

6.1
0.0

98.0

89.3

2.5
0.0

2.0
0.0

9.8

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=432 N=432 N=436 N=59 N=59 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

6.8
0.7

7.2
0.5

7.0
1.9

2.2

97.5

0.9

95.0

5.0
0.0

90.7

63.3

時々
some time

24.4

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

9.3
0.0

7.3

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=75 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaNext, in the case of the victimizing rate, we see similarities and we find that the rates among the countries
are fairly low. So there are some differences among the countries.

91

Comparison of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones)

小５（男子）：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話で
Grade5(boy): Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
97.6

1.9
0.5

97.6

1.7
0.7

98.6

0.7
0.7

97.0

3.0
0.0

93.8

4.7
1.6

91.2

98.7

8.8
0.0

1.3
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=45 N=413 N=432 N=66 N=64 N=57
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

97.4

2.6
0.0

93.4

5.3
1.3

92.1

5.5
2.4

91.4

4.7
3.9

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=76 N=76 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones)

小５（女子）：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話で
Grade5(girl): Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

98.6

98.4

97.8

93.1

94.8

92.2

95.8

96.9

97.8

94.4

92.6

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.9
0.5

1.1
0.5

2.2
0.0

6.9
0.0

5.2
0.0

7.8
0.0

2.5
1.7

3.1
0.0

2.2
0.0

5.6
0.0

7.4
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=429 N=442 N=448 N=58 N=58 N=51 N=120 N=130 N=136 N=125 N=122
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada92

Presentation

Comparison of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones)

中１（男子）：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話で
Grade7(boy): Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
時々
some time
97.2

2.3
0.5

95.8

3.6
0.5

93.9

5.3
0.8

97.0

3.0
0.0

93.8

4.7
1.6

91.2

8.8
0.0

95.8

96.9

2.5
1.7

3.1
0.0

97.8

2.2
0.0

89.4

10.6

88.9

6.7
4.4

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=394 N=384 N=393 N=66 N=64 N=57 N=120 N=130 N=136 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (using computers / telephones)

中１（女子）：いじめ加害：パソコン・電話で
Grade7(girl): Bullies:using computer, email
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
98.3

96.6

97.4

91.7

96.0

98.0

94.2

100.0

99.2

97.7

87.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1.7
0.0

3.1
0.2

2.1
0.5

8.3
0.0

4.0
0.0

2.0
0.0

5.0
0.8

0.0
0.0

0.8
0.0

2.3
0.0

9.8
2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=412 N=415 N=421 N=132 N=50 N=49 N=121 N=116 N=118 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaThe Second Least Frequent Type of Bullying
TAKI: And then, the second-least-experienced form of bullying was taking and damaging property, andwe see some significant differences among boys between the countries. So this is a category where we notice some difference between the countries.

93

Japan and Korea are both somewhat lower. And there is a higher percentage among Canada andAustralia, well, actually I think we have imaged that there is a higher percentage of physical violencebased bullying outside Japan, and maybe this is where such perception comes from. Now in the case of
the victimizing rate, the figures are lower than the victimization rate. So we have to wonder whether or
not what exactly constitutes bullying because of the difference in the victimizing and the victimized rate.
Comparison of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties)

小５（男子）：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade5(boy): Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
84.2

86.1

86.0

13.9

11.5

10.8

1.9

2.4

3.2

72.9

22.9
4.3

66.7

74.1

88.0

84.4

84.2

62.2

28.6
24.1
4.8

10.7

1.7

1.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=417 N=409 N=421 N=70 N=63 N=58
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=75

15.6

14.5

30.7

0.0

1.3

7.1

63.3

25.0
11.7

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada94

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties)

小５（女子）：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade5(girl): Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
85.6

85.0

85.2

72.9

78.0

76.5

89.3

88.9

83.5

60.0

70.5

34.4
27.1

22.0

23.5

10.7

11.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=429 N=429 N=436 N=59 N=59 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

12.8

13.6

13.1

1.6

1.4

1.8

0.0

25.4

15.2
1.3

5.6

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.1

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=76 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties)

中１（男子）：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade7(boy): Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
90.2

87.6

85.6

58.8

74.1

45.8

83.6

76.0

85.5

66.0

60.0

49.2
36.3

8.3
1.5

11.4

10.7

1.0

3.7

4.9

31.1

22.2

3.7

29.8
5.1

14.8

21.7

13.0

1.6

2.3

1.4

4.3

8.9

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=398 N=391 N=397 N=181 N=54 N=59 N=122 N=117 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada95

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Comparison of victimization rate (taking / damaging properties)

中１（女子）：いじめ被害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade7(girl): Victims:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

92.8

90.4

86.4

67.4

76.0

74.0

24.0

26.0

90.9

86.6

89.1

76.7

80.5

時々
some time

17.1

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

31.9

7.0
0.2

9.4
0.2

11.5
2.1

0.7

0.0

0.0

20.9
8.3
0.8

12.6

10.1

0.8

0.8

2.3

2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=413 N=409 N=418 N=135 N=50 N=50 N=121 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties)

小５（男子）：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade5(boy): Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

94.5

5.2
0.2

95.0

4.5
0.5

96.3

92.4

89.1

94.7

96.0

11.8

3.5
1.8

4.0
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=418 N=436 N=66 N=64 N=57
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=75

2.1
1.6

6.1
1.5

9.4
1.6

88.2

0.0

90.8

6.6
2.6

91.3

5.5
3.1

87.5

週に1回以上more thanonce/w
7.8
4.7

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=76 N=76 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada96

時々
some timePresentation

Comparison of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties)

小５（女子）：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade5(girl): Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
97.2

2.1
0.7

96.8

3.2
0.0

97.3

2.7
0.0

96.6

3.4
0.0

96.6

3.4
0.0

100.0

97.6

0.0
0.0

2.4
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=432 N=442 N=452 N=58 N=58 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=85

97.5

2.5
0.0

94.9

5.1
0.0

93.6

5.6
0.8

94.3

4.9
0.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=81 N=79 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties)

中１（男子）：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade7(boy): Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

96.5

94.1

93.0

90.5

89.1

80.7

89.1

90.8

98.5

93.6

82.2

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

19.3
3.0
0.5

5.6
0.3

6.0
1.0

9.5

10.9

0.0

0.0

10.9
0.0

時々
some time

0.0

8.5
0.3

0.7
0.7

6.4
0.0

11.1
6.7

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=397 N=392 N=400 N=179 N=55 N=57 N=119 N=130 N=136 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada97

Comparison of victimizing rate (taking / damaging properties)

中１（女子）：いじめ加害：金銭強要・物品破壊
Grade7(girl): Bullies:taking and damaging property
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
98.8

97.1

97.9

91.6

94.0

93.9

97.5

93.1

100.0

90.7

92.7

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1.2
0.0

2.6
0.2

1.6
0.5

8.4
0.0

6.0
0.0

6.1
0.0

2.5
0.0

6.9
0.0

0.0
0.0

9.3
0.0

7.3
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=414 N=417 N=426 N=131 N=50 N=49 N=121 N=116 N=118 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaThe Most Frequent Type of Bullying
TAKI: Now the most frequently-experienced form of bullying tends to be exclusion and ignoring. This issimilar among all the countries.

98Presentation

However when we compare 4 countries, there are some differences. We cannot boast, but I think there isa higher frequency in Japan. Bullying in Japan is often said primarily to be centered on exclusion, andthis notion seems proved. But unexpectedly, exclusion can also be seen rather frequently in Canada, so we
see that it’s not just the problem of Japan. Regarding Japan and Korea, you might feel that they should be
the same because we’re Asian countries, but we find that there is a difference in terms of exclusion experienced in Korea and Japan. Maybe we could talk about that later on. And now the victimizing rate. The
same situation could be seen and we see higher rates for Japan.
Comparison of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

小５（男子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade5(boy): Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
56.5

53.9

58.4

34.2

36.8

27.7

62.3

31.9

77.8

17.5

71.9

79.2

72.7

75.0

40.2
21.1

18.2

19.5

23.7

7.0

2.6

7.8

1.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=414 N=421 N=69 N=63 N=57
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

9.3

9.3

14.0

5.8

4.8

48.0

11.8

54.7

29.7

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

15.6

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

小５（女子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade5(girl): Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
49.2

36.0

40.0

46.4

48.1

35.5

12.0

18.1

64.4

61.0

49.0
78.6

75.3

17.9

24.7

45.1
25.4

28.8
5.9

3.6

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=431 N=432 N=437 N=59 N=59 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

14.8

10.2

10.2

0.0

47.2

45.1

36.0

42.6

16.8

12.3

79.5

19.2
1.3

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=75 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada99

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Comparison of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

中１（男子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade7(boy): Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
66.5

26.8
6.8

58.2

32.9
8.9

58.9

27.9
13.2

64.3

29.1
6.6

81.5

65.5

85.2

29.3
13.0
5.6

79.7

17.2

14.5

3.1

2.2

13.9
5.2
0.8

83.3

46.8

40.0

時々
some time

38.3

44.4

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

14.9

15.6

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=400 N=392 N=396 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

中１（女子）：いじめ被害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade7(girl): Victims:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
50.2

38.8

44.0

40.1

48.9

40.7

57.0

12.2

15.2

58.0

78.7

73.9

18.9

25.2

38.0
35.6

9.7

64.0

7.4

28.0
8.0

4.0

2.5

0.8

82.4

69.8

43.9

20.9

36.6

9.3

19.5

16.0
1.7

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=413 N=410 N=419 N=135 N=50 N=50 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada100時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

小５（男子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade5(boy): Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
56.5

53.9

58.4

62.3

34.2

36.8

27.7

31.9

77.8

71.9

17.5

79.2

18.2

21.1
9.3

9.3

14.0

5.8

4.8

7.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=414 N=421 N=69 N=63 N=57
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

2.6

72.7

19.5
7.8

75.0

23.7
1.3

75.6

71.9

19.7

21.9

4.7

6.3

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目
1st
N=77

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

小５（女子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade5(girl): Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
49.2

40.0

46.4

36.0

48.1

35.5

64.4

61.0

49.0

78.6

75.3

17.0
5.6

3.6

0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=432 N=432 N=437 N=59 N=59 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

25.4
14.8

12.0

77.6

78.7

19.2

20.8

17.2

1.3

1.6

4.1

45.1
24.7

18.1

79.5

10.2

28.8
10.2

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=75 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada101

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Comparison of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

中１（男子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade7(boy): Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
66.5

26.8
6.8

58.2

32.9
8.9

58.9

27.9
13.2

64.3

29.1
6.6

81.5

65.5

13.0

29.3

5.6

5.2

85.2

13.9
3.8

79.7

17.2
3.1

83.3

57.4

42.6
14.5
2.2

0.0

68.9

26.7

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=400 N=392 N=396 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=122 N=166 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (exclusion / ignoring / rumors)

中１（女子）：いじめ加害：仲間はずれ・無視・陰口
Grade7(girl): Bullies:excluding,ignoring,rumors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
50.2

38.8

44.0

57.0

64.0

58.0
78.7

48.9
40.1
9.7

12.2

40.7
15.2

35.6

28.0

38.0

18.9

7.4

8.0

4.0

2.5

73.9

82.4

72.1

65.9

25.2

16.0

25.6

31.7

0.8

1.7

2.3

2.4

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=413 N=410 N=419 N=135 N=50 N=50 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaNext, teasing and name-calling. This is the second-most-experienced form of bullying in Japan.

102

Presentation

I’m afraid we are focusing primarily on the ranking in Japan, but we find that actually teasing and namecalling is experienced quite frequently outside Japan as well. So this is a fairly well-experienced form ofbullying across the different countries.

Comparison of victimization rate (teasing / name calling)

小５（男子）：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口
Grade5(boy): Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
56.3

53.5

55.9

51.4
66.7

32.5

33.7

28.3

12.9

15.9

20.0

42.5

64.9

56.6

29.9

27.6

30.7

5.2

15.8

6.7

62.7

40.9

28.6
23.8

11.2

58.6

9.5

29.3
12.1

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=412 N=420 N=70 N=63 N=58
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

16.5

46.1

40.6

13.3

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=72 N=70 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada103

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Comparison of victimization rate (teasing / name calling)

小５（女子）：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口
Grade5(girl): Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
55.4

53.3

57.1

33.9

33.9

29.9

10.6

12.9

13.1

47.5

56.9

47.1

27.6
15.5

37.6
59.5

60.0

45.1

27.4

35.0

29.1

7.8

13.1

5.0

2.5

48.0

35.6
16.9

45.9

68.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=431 N=432 N=436 N=59 N=58 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

40.2
14.4

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

13.9

1回目
1st
N=84

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=79 N=76 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (teasing / name calling)

中１（男子）：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口
Grade7(boy): Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

26.5
42.6

44.1

47.8

29.3

38.3
59.0

57.8

37.8

77.5

74.1
50.3
41.2

35.2

31.9

11.1

17.4

32.0
10.2

23.2

22.2

42.2

36.7

45.8
14.8

11.0

48.3

22.4
9.0

5.5

5.1

29.8

20.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=181 N=54 N=59 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada104

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimization rate (teasing / name calling)

中１（女子）：いじめ被害：からかう・悪口
Grade7(girl): Victims:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
58.2

49.8

50.8

50.7

32.6

40.9

35.4

37.5

9.2

9.3

13.8

11.8

58.0

56.0

63.1

69.7

78.2

62.8

46.3

31.7
34.0
8.0

42.0
2.0

27.9
9.0

27.7
2.5

16.0
5.9

25.6
11.6

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

22.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=413 N=411 N=419 N=136 N=50 N=50 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaIn terms of victimizing rate, I think it’s somewhat larger for Canada, somewhat lower for Korea. So wehave tried to compare the four countries.
Comparison of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling)

小５（男子）：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口
Grade5(boy): Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
56.3

53.5

55.9

32.5

33.7

28.3

51.4

66.7

12.9

15.9

64.9

56.6

62.7

62.2

64.1

29.3

29.9

27.6

30.7

33.9

31.3

5.2

15.8

3.9

4.7

28.6
23.8

11.2

58.6

20.0

9.5

12.1

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=412 N=420 N=70 N=63 N=58
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

6.7

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=72 N=70 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
Canada105

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Comparison of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling)

小５（女子）：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口
Grade5(girl): Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
55.4

53.3

57.1

33.9

33.9

29.9

59.5

60.0

27.4

35.0

7.8

13.1

5.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=431 N=432 N=436 N=59 N=58 N=51
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

10.6

12.9

13.1

47.5

35.6

16.9

56.9

47.1

27.6

45.1

15.5

68.4

72.0

70.5

29.1

24.8

24.6

2.5

3.2

4.9

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=79 N=76 N=125 N=122
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling)

中１（男子）：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口
Grade7(boy): Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

26.5
42.6

44.1

47.8

29.3

59.0

50.3

48.3

11.1

40.0

35.2
32.0

14.8
11.0

55.3
77.5

45.8

41.2

40.0

57.8

74.1

10.2

23.2

22.2

22.4

9.0

36.7
5.5

17.4
5.1

36.2
8.5

20.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=181 N=54 N=59 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada106

時々some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimizing rate (teasing / name calling)

中１（女子）：いじめ加害：からかう・悪口
Grade7(girl): Bullies:teasing, calling name
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
58.2

32.6
9.2

49.8

50.8

50.7

40.9

35.4

37.5

58.0

34.0
9.3

13.8

56.0

42.0

63.1

27.9

69.7

78.2

27.7
16.0

11.8

8.0

2.0

9.0

2.5

5.9

69.8

65.9

25.6

31.7

4.7

2.4

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=413 N=411 N=419 N=136 N=50 N=50 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaThe Type of Bullying with Middle Frequency
TAKI: Now we have taken a look at the form of bullying which is the most experienced and the least experienced, but now we want to take a look at the form of bullying which is somewhere in between frequent and infrequent. And this is where we note some differences among the countries. Pushing and hitting jokingly, for example, indicates the first survey for grade 7, and across all rankings for grade 7 girls,
we see significant difference.

107For example, in Japan you might feel that the rate is somewhat high, however, it’s much lower comparedto other countries. This is grade 4 and grade 5. Grade 7, boys, grade 7 girls. We talked about this earlier
but for inexcusable problematic behaviour, Japan is addressing the issues quite properly. However, formore ambiguous problematic activities, countermeasures seem not properly taken. Perhaps I should not
focus so much on Japan. Well, let’s go on to next charts.

Comparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

小５（男子）：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(boy): Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
ぜんぜん
never

100%

27.4

80%

54.6

53.1

55.8

43.1

44.2

44.8

50.6

12.1

5.2

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58
オーストラリア
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

45.7

52.4

32.4

37.0

32.8
時々
some time

60%

63.0

40%
20%
0%

41.4
25.6

28.0

23.8

8.6

9.0

11.4

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=411 N=420
日本
Japan

12.9

39.7
7.9

9.6

45.1

44.9

50.0

22.5

18.1

17.2

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71
韓国
South Korea

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
カナダ
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

小５（女子）：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(girl): Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
ぜんぜん
never

100%
80%

53.6

54.2

51.8

66.1

47.0

54.2

62.7

37.3

35.3

32.5

28.9

44.8

43.4

45.6

44.3

9.6

12.3

60%

47.0

40%
20%

23.9

24.9

16.9

32.2

0%

5.8

7.7

9.4

1.7

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=431 N=430 N=437
日本
Japan

8.5

2.0

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=59 N=59 N=51
オーストラリア
Australia

6.0

57.5

53.9

10.0

17.1

1回目
1st
N=83

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=76
韓国
South Korea

108

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=125 N=122
N=
カナダ
Canada時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

中１（男子）：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(boy): Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)

15.6

ぜんぜん
never

48.9

時々
some time

100%

26.5

80%

53.9

50.8

29.3

26.2

25.6

35.7

25.5

42.6

57.2

60%

50.3
40%

48.3

57.4

54.7

20%

25.6

0%

7.0

27.0

27.3

10.2

13.9

23.2

22.2

46.8

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

43.5

35.2

22.4

16.4

19.7

20.9

27.7

35.6

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=399 N=392 N=410 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=122 N=117 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

中１（女子）：いじめ被害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(girl): Victims:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%

36.9

80%
60%

57.7

55.2

53.1

66.1

54.2

40%
20%
0%

16.1
3.6

20.7
2.9

32.2

37.1
47.0

62.7

37.3

35.3

8.5

2.0

50.8

46.6

12.3

16.4

14.6
6.0

1.7

41.9

31.7

時々
some time
39.0

31.3

41.9

21.7

16.3

ぜんぜん
never

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

29.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=411 N=396 N=417 N=59 N=59 N=51 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaThis is the victimizing rate. Not so high in Japan. I think Prof. Sim talked about why this form of bullying was more frequent in Korea. I think this is a very interesting phenomenon.

109Comparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

小５（男子）：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(boy): Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
ぜんぜん
never

100%

27.4

80%

54.6

53.1

55.8

43.1

44.2

44.8

50.6

12.1

5.2

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58
オーストラリア
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

45.7

52.4

32.4
47.2

43.0

60%
40%
20%
0%

41.4
25.6

28.0

23.8

8.6

9.0

1.4

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=411 N=420
日本
Japan

12.9

39.7
7.9

63.0

45.1
44.1

9.6

22.5

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71
韓国
South Korea

8.7

43.0

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

14.1

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
カナダ
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

小５（女子）：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(girl): Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
ぜんぜん
never

100%

32.5

80%

53.6

54.2

51.8

66.1

54.2

62.7

37.3

35.3

8.5

2.0

28.9

47.0

66.4

63.9

60%
40%
20%
0%

23.9
5.8

24.9

16.9

32.2

7.7

9.4

1.7

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=431 N=430 N=437
日本
Japan

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=59 N=59 N=51
オーストラリア
Australia

47.0

6.0

1回目
1st
N=83

57.5

53.9

10.0

17.1

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=76
韓国
South Korea

110

29.6

27.0

4.0

9.0

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=125 N=122
N=
カナダ
Canada時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

中１（男子）：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(boy): Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
100%

26.5

80%

53.9

50.8

29.3

26.2

25.6

42.6

57.2

35.7

34.0

20.0

時々
some time

60%

50.3
35.2

40%
20%

25.6

27.0

0%

7.0

10.2

27.3
13.9

23.2

22.2

ぜんぜん
never

46.7

48.3

57.4

54.7

43.5

46.8

22.4

16.4

19.7

20.9

19.1

週に1回以上more thanonce/w
33.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=399 N=392 N=410 N=181 N=54 N=58 N=122 N=117 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking jokingly)

中１（女子）：いじめ加害：かるくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(girl): Bullies:pushing,hitting(jokingly)
ぜんぜん
never

100%

36.9

80%
60%

57.7

55.2

53.1

66.1

54.2

40%
20%
0%

16.1
3.6

20.7
2.9

37.1

62.7

32.2

37.3

35.3

1.7

8.5

2.0

47.0

50.8

46.6

31.3

12.3

16.4

21.7

48.8

31.7
41.9

14.6
6.0

41.5

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

26.8
9.3

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=411 N=396 N=417 N=59 N=59 N=51 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaNow, in the Western countries, hitting and kicking were categorized as one single category, however, wehave decided to differentiate between hitting and kicking jokingly, and pushing and hitting on purpose.
And we find that the pushing and hitting on purpose is not all that high in Western countries.

111

In Japan, pushing and hitting on purpose is not that high as a percentage, but it’s the same for Australia. I
think we should probably focus more on pushing and hitting jokingly type of bullying because if it’s done
jokingly, then it’s much more difficult for other persons to intervene.

Comparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

小５（男子）：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(boy): Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

76.4

16.9
6.7

75.5

20.9
3.6

75.2

17.0
7.8

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=418 N=409 N=420
日本
Japan

64.3

27.1
8.6

73.0

22.2
4.8

81.0

10.3

81.8

16.9

8.6

1.3

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=70 N=63 N=58
オーストラリア
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

70.1

23.4
6.5

59.1

33.9

31.3

7.1

7.8

11.8
7.9

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=73 N=71
韓国
South Korea

112

60.9

80.3

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
カナダ
Canada時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

小５（女子）：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(girl): Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

82.4

13.7
3.9

83.0

14.8
2.3

85.2

94.0

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=430 N=429 N=437
日本
Japan

88.6

94.0

87.7

88.6

64.8

26.4

10.6
4.2

87.7

11.1
6.0
0.0

1.2

10.1
1.3

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=84 N=80 N=76
オーストラリア
Australia

11.1

10.1

1.2

1.3

6.0
0.0

1回目
1st
N=84

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=80 N=76
韓国
South Korea

8.8

71.3

23.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.9

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=125 N=122
N=
カナダ
CanadaComparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

中１（男子）：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(boy): Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
84.5

76.3

12.5

18.3

3.0

5.3

73.3

18.5
8.2

68.3

92.6

25.1
6.6

5.6
1.9

76.3

76.2

22.0

19.7

1.7

4.1

72.7

84.1

25.0

15.2

2.3

0.7

66.0

62.2

時々
some time

29.8

33.3

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

4.3

4.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=400 N=390 N=396 N=182 N=54 N=59 N=122 N=116 N=115 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada113

Comparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

中１（女子）：いじめ被害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(girl): Victims:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

92.0

88.0

89.2

89.0

96.0

94.0

89.3

89.0

95.8

88.4

92.7

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

6.3
1.7

9.8
2.2

7.8
3.1

10.3
0.7

2.0
2.0

6.0
0.0

9.8

10.2

0.8

0.8

4.2
0.0

9.3
2.3

4.9
2.4

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=413 N=410 N=416 N=136 N=50 N=50 N=122 N=115 N=115 N=43 N=41
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

小５（男子）：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(boy): Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
88.6

10.2
1.2

83.0

15.1
1.9

87.6

9.6
2.7

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=420 N=418 N=437
日本
Japan

84.1

85.9

12.7

12.5

3.2

1.6

82.5

15.8

78.9

19.7

1.8

1.3

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=63 N=64 N=57
オーストラリア
Australia

1回目
1st
N=76

75.3

23.4

1.3

78.9

17.1
3.9

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=77 N=76
韓国
South Korea

114

75.6

75.0

21.3

21.9

3.1

3.1

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=127 N=128
N=
カナダ
Canada時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

Presentation

Comparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

小５（女子）：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade５(girl): Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never
92.4

92.3

93.4

96.6

96.6

98.0

92.9

90.1

87.3

88.8

87.8

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

6.2
1.4

7.5
0.2

4.6
2.0

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=432 N=442 N=453
日本
Japan

3.4
0.0

3.4
0.0

2.0
0.0

7.1
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=58 N=58 N=50
オーストラリア
Australia

1回目
1st
N=84

7.4
2.5

11.4

9.6

10.7

1.3

1.6

1.6

2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
N=81 N=79
韓国
South Korea

1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
N=125 N=122
N=
カナダ
CanadaComparison of victimizing rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

中１（男子）：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(boy): Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

91.7

82.2

16.0
7.3
1.0

1.8

80.6

90.4

98.2

15.1
4.2

80.7

19.3
9.0
0.6

1.8
0.0

0.0

85.8

11.7
2.5

84.4

92.6

21.3

14.8
0.8

74.5

5.1
2.2

4.3

60.0

時々
some time

33.3

週に1回以上more thanonce/w

6.7

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=398 N=393 N=403 N=177 N=55 N=57 N=120 N=128 N=136 N=47 N=45
N=
日本
オーストラリア
韓国
カナダ
Japan
Australia
South Korea
Canada115

Comparison of victimization rate (pushing / hitting / kicking on purpose)

中１（女子）：いじめ加害：ひどくぶつかる・叩く・蹴る
Grade７(girl): Bullies:pushing,hitting(on purpose)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

ぜんぜん
never

95.4

94.3

95.1

93.2

100.0

97.9

95.8

92.2

94.9

97.7

95.1

時々
some time
週に1回以上more thanonce/w

3.9
0.7

4.8
1.0

4.5
0.5

2.1
0.0

4.2
0.0

1回目 2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=45 N=413 N=432 N=66 N=64 N=57
日本
オーストラリア
Japan
Australia

1回目
1st
N=77

6.8
0.0

0.0
0.0

7.8
0.0

5.1
0.0

0.0
2.3

2.4
2.4

2回目 3回目 1回目 2回目 3回目
2nd
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
N=76 N=76 N=127 N=128
N=
韓国
カナダ
South Korea
CanadaRegarding the characteristics of each country, maybe we could talk about that later after we completed allthese slides. Although there are differences in degrees, there are certain similarities too. However, if westart discussing these minor differences as well as similarities in detail, it will be endless, and so we won’t
go further today. So here in Japan, exclusion are one of the most typical bullying, however, outside ofJapan, if you take a look at the more typical type of bulling, we find certain differences. And we see somedifferences in degrees in terms of the same type of bullying, and we hope that the panelists will be able totalk about the background later on.

Cross-National Comparisons of Continuation and Recurrence Rate
TAKI: Now you will find more graphs containing reference materials. It was very difficult to show themall on the screen. We show Japan, Australia, and South Korea. This is already explained earlier I believe.
The left-hand side shows the percentage of repeaters for certain acts of bullying. We find that the recurrence rate is not all that high. And we find that if we don’t question the frequency, we find that over a
year-and-a-half period, a very large number of children experienced some form of bullying. And the subsequent charts are very similar so I will not show in the same fashion. I have decided to show with achart.

116

Presentation

Recurrence rate of victimization in primary school (Exclusion / ignoring / rumors): 1.5 years 3 surveys

We took a look at the recurrence rate of high frequency victimization. Regarding exclusion, teasing, hitting jokingly, hitting on purpose, and taking property if you’re talking about a year and a half you mightfind that the same victims would be victimized over the same period, however, we find that in the first
and the second survey, different children are being victimized. So, a single child being victimized over along period seems not the case. So let’s take a look at Australia. I think in Australia we have a high percentage of teasing, name-calling, and there seems not so much bullying with high frequency. I think thesame could be said for Korea if we look at grade 5.

117

Recurrence rate of victimization in primary school: high frequency
仲間はずれ いやがらせ かるく叩く ひどく叩く 金銭強要
小５被害高頻度
teasing
hit jokingly hit on purpose taking property
Gr5 victimization high frequency excluding
日本
Japan

メール
e-mail

３回 3times

2.1

2.0

0.8

0.2

0.1

0.1

２回 twice

6.3

6.9

4.8

1.4

1.3

0.2

１回 once

19.3

17.8

13.4

10.3

3.1

2.1

０回 none

72.3

73.3

81.0

88.1

95.5

97.6

0.9

4.7

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

5.7

4.7

4.7

0.9

0.0

１回 once

13.2

14.2

8.5

1.9

1.9

1.9

０回 none

84.0

75.5

85.8

93.4

97.2

98.1

0.0

2.1

1.4

0.7

0.0

0.0

1.4

2.1

6.8

0.0

0.0

0.7

１回 once

4.8

13.7

18.5

7.5

2.1

2.1

０回 none

93.8

82.2

73.3

91.8

97.9

97.3

オーストラリア ３回 3times
Australia
２回 twice

３回 3times
韓国South Korea
２回 twice

And this is the seventh grade in the secondary school, and we find that the occurrence rate slightly decreases.
Recurrence rate of victimization in lower secondary school: high frequency
仲間はずれ いやがらせ かるく叩く ひどく叩く 金銭強要
中１被害高頻度
teasing
hit jokingly hit on purpose taking property
Gr7 victimization high frequency excluding
日本
Japan

メール
e-mail

３回 3times

1.9

1.8

1.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

２回 twice

5.3

5.1

2.7

1.2

0.4

0.0

１回 once

15.3

18.6

11.8

7.9

3.2

2.7

０回 none

77.4

74.5

84.3

90.6

96.4

97.2

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

1.1

0.0

3.2

6.5

7.5

0.0

1.1

1.1

１回 once

7.5

7.5

18.3

3.2

2.2

0.0

０回 none

89.2

86.0

72.0

96.8

95.7

98.9

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

2.2

8.4

0.4

0.0

0.0

１回 once

4.0

13.8

23.1

3.6

4.4

1.8

０回 none

95.6

84.0

64.0

96.0

95.6

98.2

オーストラリア ３回 3times
Australia
２回 twice

３回 3times
韓国South Korea
２回 twice

Now in the case of victimizing rate, this is how the situation would look. This is for primary school. In
the case of excluding, as this type of bullying often involve large number of children, the number is somewhat larger, however, for other acts, it is less frequent, and there are almost no cases that continuing all
survey period, as you can see. So, we can say both case of victimizing and victimization takes place fairly
infrequently.

118

Presentation

Recurrence rate of victimizing in primary school: high frequency
小５加害高頻度
Gr5 victimizing high frequency
日本
Japan

仲間はずれ いやがらせ かるく叩く ひどく叩く 金銭強要
excludingteasing
hit jokingly hit on purpose taking property

メール
e-mail

0.6

0.6

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

２回 twice

3.5

1.7

1.4

0.6

0.1

0.1

１回 once

11.7

9.4

6.4

3.5

1.3

0.8

０回 none

84.3

88.2

92.0

95.9

98.6

99.0

0.0

0.9

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.0

１回 once

2.8

1.9

6.6

0.9

0.0

0.9

０回 none

96.2

96.2

91.5

98.1

99.1

99.1

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.7

4.8

0.7

0.0

0.0

１回 once

1.4

8.2

19.9

2.7

1.4

2.1

０回 none

97.9

91.1

74.7

96.6

98.6

97.9

３回 3times

オーストラリア ３回 3times
Australia
２回 twice

３回 3times
韓国South Korea
２回 twice

Recurrence rate of victimizing in lower secondary school: high frequency
仲間はずれ いやがらせ かるく叩く ひどく叩く 金銭強要
中１加害高頻度
teasing
hit jokingly hit on purpose taking property
Gr7 victimizing high frequency excluding
日本
Japan

メール
e-mail

３回 3times

1.1

0.6

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

２回 twice

3.9

2.2

1.6

0.6

0.1

0.1

１回 once

13.0

8.3

5.5

3.2

0.9

0.9

０回 none

82.0

88.9

92.8

96.2

99.0

99.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.1

5.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

１回 once

1.1

2.2

7.5

0.0

0.0

1.1

０回 none

98.9

96.8

86.0

100.0

100.0

98.9

0.0

0.0

3.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

1.3

5.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

１回 once

4.4

7.6

21.3

3.1

0.0

1.3

０回 none

95.1

91.1

70.2

96.9

0.9

98.7

オーストラリア ３回 3times
Australia
２回 twice

３回 3times
韓国South Korea
２回 twice

Now, when we compare the continuation between three countries, it seems the notion that serious bullying can happen to any school, any class and any child can be applicable on a global scale. As this is something which Japan has been saying for the last 10 years, we really need this awareness to spread globally.

119

People tend to focus on children who have been physically bullied right in front of our eyes, however, as
Prof. Morita mentioned earlier, physical trauma can be overcome, but emotional trauma, humiliation
will last for a very long period. Children may not be able to return to school as a result. Maybe in the year
2000, I think you talked about some tragic incident of suicide in Canada, right?
HYMEL: Yes, within a short space of a year, all due to bullying.
TAKI: Was that, that wasn’t due to physical bullying, was it? I think it was interpersonal relationships.
That was the case, right?
HYMEL: In all cases it was mostly exclusion and verbal threats that were named as opposed to physicalbullying.
TAKI: Which means it is the same as the case of Japan. Children who are pushed to suicide often not because of physical violence. It’s more of exclusion, graffiti on their belongings, and things like that. These
are the reasons for children committing suicide, and that seems globally applicable. However, when we
have debates over bullying, we tend to focus on the physical aggression, and of course these are serious
too and we’re not saying that we should ignore these acts, however, there are other forms of serious bullying and those are very critical. That’s what we wanted to put across to you.

What Make Children Taking Bullying Behaviour
TAKI: So perhaps we could take a look at the different patterns in the following subsequent charts.
Before moving on to the characteristics of each country and before moving on to the background of bul-

120

Presentation

lying, I would like to take up this one.
Japan
TAKI: In Japan I used the same diagram to discuss Japan, but as this is a different grade, the diagram may
look differently. For each grade, as the interpersonal relations may vary and the degrees of personal relations differ, we have a somewhat different linkage in these diagrams, but many of these elements can be
explained from this diagram. Families, teachers, and peers are in opposing relations. Families, peers, andteachers, each of them try to understand and try to support individually. It’s difficult to manage. This isboys.

The same basic pattern continues. This is girls. So this is how it looks, a conclusion similar to the earlier
chart from Japan.

121Regarding this stress hypothesis, I have discussed this with Prof. Slee and I have conducted a survey before, So, I would like to have comment from Prof. Slee on this hypothesis. It looks somewhat similar but
looks simpler. Families, peers, and teachers are not opposing, unlike Japan.
Australia
SLEE: This was a very helpful discussion to have had with Mitsuru because when we began to explore thewhole idea of the stress hypothesis and look at the contributions, we divided it into the study, the teachers, peers and family. And what we found was that there were quite direct links with the symptoms ofstress that the students were experiencing. And then as Mitsuru has described, that then is strongly linked
to bullying others. So in Australia there does appear to be quite a strong link between the pressures thatthe children feel, the way they then manifest that stress in depression and in anxiety and physical symptoms such as headaches. And that then is linked very strongly to the tendency to bully others. So it does
lend a lot of weight to the idea of the stress hypothesis.

122

Presentation

123

Japan
TAKI: Before, we had some similar exercise and I was surprised. Japan is said to be unique in that wehave entrance examination stress which often cause bullying in Japan. But looking at Australia, study is asource of stress too similar to the situation in Japan. So study is not necessarily for entrance examinations
but there seem some variations. Probably, have to get good marks or not interested in the study itself, notbeing able to follow classes and not being able to understand what is being taught, and so on. Study canbe an important source of stress. In the MEXT policy, there is a message that class studies should be easierto understand and we can now understand that this is one important element in the policy. Next, thegirls chart in Australia. Would you like to comment?
Australia
SLEE: As Mr. Taki has mentioned, it may be a perception that in Australia the students and the adults
spend a lot of time on the beach relaxing and that they’re not very stressed, but what we found in fact wasthat studying is a significant stressor and that there is a great deal of competition amongst the students.
And that similarly, the pressure for girls, peers are an important source of stress. So the extent to which
the girls feel accepted in their peer group and liked by others, and if that doesn’t occur then that’s a significant source of stress. So study and peers, particularly for girls, again, is very, very strongly linked tosymptoms of stress, strongly linked, and then very, very strongly linked to the tendency to bully others.
So think what this is doing is giving us an important window into interventions in Australia from anAustralian context, differences, gender differences between boys and girls, give school counsellors, social
workers an opportunity to think differently about how they might begin to intervene in a school context.
TAKI: To Korea. This is the Korean situation. And we have two participants from Korea today. Earlier
data were data collected by Prof. Sim, and this set of data was collected by Prof. Kwak, who will be participating in the panel discussion later. With a larger population the data is more consistent and Prof.
Kwak’s data with a larger sample is used, but I would like to ask for comment from Prof. Sim.
Korea
SIM: Actually, it’s not my data so I didn’t give some thought about it. But I can see something a little bit.
The competition has an influence as a source of stress. In Korea, grade 7, the source of peer stress affectedbullying others positively. But not from the stress of study - the stress of teacher, the stress of family. So I
feel kind of curious about that. But I’ve got some data at home about the relationship between stress andbullying others. I saw a lot of correlations but I’m not sure about this data.

124

Presentation

125

Current Situation on Bullying Among 4 Countries
TAKI: Later, perhaps Prof. Kwak can discuss this in more detail. But it seems that the diagram looks
quite similar to the Japanese diagram, and in any country interpersonal relations may be working to alleviate stress or it may be lessening the frequency of bullying others. So it seems the situation is similar.
But it seems that there are no group-to-group confrontations, group against group confrontations, unlike
Japan. I hear that entrance examinations are more competitive in Korea than in Japan, and in news reports there is some footage from Korea that police on motorbikes help students to arrive at the entrance
examination centre. We may not be able to draw a simple comparison but it seems that the situation isquite similar in Korea.
We looked at different types of bullying and whether it is persistent and continuous. It seems that there
are some different characteristics across countries, but in any type of bullying it is not continuous. It is
not persistent. Bullies are changing time to time. So it’s not that a special population of children is bullies. If there is no victimizing population, then can we apply the stress hypothesis? When we apply thestress hypothesis, to some degree I think with this model we can explain why students turn to bullying
others.
In the previous symposium we had a discussion on countermeasures of each country, and that was thestarting point of the discussion. Now this time, we are showing the data first, because if situations differ
greatly from country to country then it may not be so meaningful to discuss countermeasures. But it
seems that there are many common aspects, and countermeasures taken by other countries may be informative and helpful.
Thus we would now like to move on to measures taken by each country, beginning with Australia. First,
your country’s situation, and policies and countermeasures.
Australia
SLEE: The research on school bullying perhaps began in 1989-1990 in Australia and was first publishedin 1991. Following that particular work, a colleague and I have been researching school bullying and its
impact for a number of years now, and so it is particularly valuable in a conference such as this to sharedifferent ideas and then to take those ideas back and to talk with educators, teachers, policy-makers andwith bureaucrats.
And so in Australia at the moment, the issue of school bullying is very high on the agenda now of the government. So really, until perhaps 1994 when some statistics started to become available from our research, it wasn’t taken that seriously. Prof. Sim has asked me a question around why bullying does occur
in an Australian context. And I think that today, and it gave me some pause for thought about what is itthat maintains bullying in Australia? And I think there are different influences at work. I think culturally
it was often an acceptable form of human relationship. So it was a way of behaving toward others. And I
think there’s the influence of the media as an important part of it. And I think that adults and educators
didn’t take it very seriously, so I was very interested in the opening speech where Japanese teachers were
urged to think about reported incidents of bullying very seriously.

126

Presentation

That’s very similar to Australia where it is strongly urged that teachers take reported incidents and try anddo something about them. So moving on from 1994, in the last two years some of us have been involved
with the federal government in Australia, it’s a little difficult to explain, but in each of the states, I comefrom South Australia, education is a part of the government of South Australia, but we also have a federal
government that is responsible for education overall in Australia. Now Federally, the government is taking the issue of school bullying and violence very seriously.
So Prof. Morita before referred to international efforts, such as the International Observatory that’s drawing together international ideas about bullying. Well in Australia now they’ve developed a framework
and a group of us met with teachers and principals, students and bureaucrats from Canberra two years
ago, and we devised what was called the National Safe Schools Framework. Now the National Safe
Schools Framework was intended to provide for all Australian schools a basis for schools taking action to
reduce bullying and violence, so it was very specifically directed at the issue of school bullying and violence. It’s important to say, I think, that there were exchanges of visits between Japan and Australia, andteachers, Mr. Taki was involved in some of those, and so teachers came from Australia and visited here in
Japan and saw what was happening. And it’s those kinds of influences I think that have affected the bureaucrats to take the issue quite seriously. So now we have a National Safe Schools Framework. Everyschool in Australia now, beginning this year, must address the framework itself.
Prof. Morita before talked about, so there are five points to this framework. The first of those has to dowith identifying school values, ethos and culture that promote student well-being. Secondly, schools
must look at developing policies, programs and procedures for reducing bullying and violence. Thirdly,
they must provide professional development for teachers and principals and school counsellors, and also
for students through peer support programs, and for parents through parent education and parent training. Schools must be able to show what they do when a student comes to a teacher and says that they arebeing bullied. So they must have a way of showing how they manage incidents of bullying. They mustalso provide support for students, so it must be seen that in the school there is support provided by theteachers, by school counsellors, through programs such as peer support. And finally, they emphasize
working closely with parents.
So I was interested to listen to Prof. Morita’s conversation where what was being emphasized was a community basis for reducing bullying and violence. So now in Australia, using the National Safe Schools
Framework, every school must report back against what they are doing every year, for those five points.
So they must be able to show how they are addressing school bullying and violence. And the Federal government has encouraged that by providing federal funding to the schools so that the schools who areshowing positive programs and can show that they are reducing bullying or addressing bullying or haveparticular initiatives, are encouraged to share those ideas, and then there’s also some funding associatedwith those positive initiatives. So this year that National Safe Schools Framework will begin to take place,and all schools across every jurisdiction. So we have public schools, and we have Catholic schools and wehave independent schools. Every school must report against these criteria.
To finish with, I think that one of the initiatives in Australia that is important is that bullying is now seen
to extend beyond the individual, beyond the school, and into the community. So the focus much morestrongly is on how the community can support and provide support for students and for teachers to re-127

duce bullying. So bullying is not seen as just something that is the school’s responsibility. And so I thinkit’s extending much more widely into the community. And so there are programs that we are now working with where we are involved with welfare agencies and police and social workers and pediatricians anddoctors, where we come into the schools and we introduce programs around safety and protecting one’s
self from bullying and violence.
And at the same time we are looking to strengthen the bonds in the community so the social capital thatexists in the community, so to build up and to strengthen communities so that they are better able to deal
with the bullying that, yes, does occur in the schools but which is not the sole responsibility of the school.
So it’s seen now more broadly speaking as a community issue that communities now are being encouraged to attempt to address. And some of the more recent programs in the last year or so that I and mycolleagues have been involved in has had to do with addressing bullying at a community level. So Mr.
Taki, I think that is a clarification of the National Safe Schools Framework that has just been introduced.

TAKI: Thank you. Prof. Sim, please.
Korea
SIM: Okay, from the perspective of research, we started from 1997, so it’s quite a new area. But as you
can imagine, bullying and victimization were there from a long time ago. So I think awareness of thatphenomenon is now starting. So we made some videotapes for reducing bullying and victimization, so I
think we are ready to launch that from March this year. So we hope to help the victims amongst schools.
Policies taken by Korea will be spoken by Keumjoo Kwak later on in more detail.

128

Presentation

TAKI: Ms. Shelley?
CanadaHYMEL: It’s somewhat difficult to be here representing the country with the highest rates of bullying,but I need to speak to that issue.
There are many reasons why Canada’s rates may have been higher across areas, but one comes to mind as
most striking. We are very early in the process, and right now in British Columbia, where these data weretaken, it is the peak of awareness-building. Essentially, attention to bullying has not been a primary concern in schools in Canada until recently. My colleagues, Debra Pepler and Wendy Craig, have been doing
research since the 90s in the area, but it was never seen as a national concern despite their efforts. In 1997
in British Columbia, my province, a young girl named Reena Virk was brutally murdered by six girls anda boy, and it shocked the country; it shocked the province in particular. But still, nothing happened. It
wasn’t until this tragedy was followed by two suicide deaths in 2000-2001 that the province of British
Columbia decided that we had to do something about it. And in that particular province, in 2002 theMinistry of Education made “social responsibility” a foundational skill for the province, saying that social
responsibility skills were as important as reading, writing and numeracy.
They began a campaign, and right now we have essentially raised awareness of bullying to the point where
we are seeing kids recognizing it in many forms, which may account in part for our higher rates. As yet,
we do not have a national anti-bullying strategy, although we have begun one. With my colleagues, Drs.
Debra Pepler and Wendy Craig from Ontario and Michel Boivin from Quebec, and myself from British
Columbia, we have launched the Canadian Initiative for the Prevention of Bullying. The website justwent up a few months ago and we have begun to raise awareness. But the process is very much in its infancy. In 2004, we had our first national conference about bullying for the country.
So we’re in the very early stages and we are very pleased to be able to follow what we learned from the examples of our colleagues in Australia and Japan who have national policies, as well as England andNorway, and hope to benefit from the work that you’ve done in putting that on the agenda for Canada.
And you’ll be seeing more of our initiative in this area in the future, I hope.

129

TAKI: Thank you very much. I think the respective countries have talked about their respective situations. And we have been able to hear about some of the policies being taken at the national level, and I
think we have heard that some countries are still in their infancy. And some work is being carried out on
a voluntary basis by some experts.
Canada’s third data will be coming very soon. I’m afraid they were not in time for this symposium but thedata will be coming and we were not able to use that data. But I think going forward we hope to scrutinize and analyze this data even further. So we’ve only been able to introduce a very rough sketch of thisstudy. The impressions that I have are as follows. We’ve had the report. We’ve also introduced some ofthe policies of the respective countries. Now our fellow panellists were able to see this data only maybe
about a week ago. And yesterday we were able to exchange data for the first time. And I think we wereable to exchange views as to why some bullying activities were more frequent in different countries. I
know we are living in the age of the Internet, however, I think face-to-face discussions cannot be substituted in some cases.
So for the members on the podium today, I think the results of the survey are very refreshing. So maybe
you can share with us your impressions about this survey, your thoughts about this survey, some featuresof the survey, some of the advantages and disadvantages behind this type of survey. So maybe we can begin with Phillip Slee. Any impressions about this survey?

Aspects and Advantages of Cooperative Study in 4 Countries
Australia
SLEE: Thank you. When we met yesterday it was delightful to spend some time looking over the infor-

130Presentation

mation that Mr. Taki had collated for us. I think my comments would be directed very broadly. One of
the real values of the research is the collaborative nature of what we are doing. So we are building up a
network now, a collaborative network involving, particularly strongly Canada and Korea and Japan andAustralia, and more recently, as Prof. Morita mentioned, there was a conference in Bordeaux that I wasable to attend for the International Observatory. And what attending that conference did was highlightfor me how important it is for a communication such as we are having today so that we can share information amongst ourselves and talk about it, and that generates new and rich ideas to reduce the level ofviolence and bullying.
It also became clear to me when I attended the conference in Bordeaux that it is a rather unique relationship that we’ve established with the Pacific Rim countries. And one might expect that we would get significant differences, given difference in culture and background and history, and yes, there are some ofthose differences there, but, as you have seen today, there are also some strong similarities across ourcountries. And so it’s the exploration of that that I think is the way forward. It provides a basis for attending to the welfare of children who are the most vulnerable in our population, and particularly aroundviolence and bullying.
And so it’s this sharing of ideas I think that stimulates ideas for prevention in particular, and making interventions, but not making those interventions directed at special children in that very strong sense of
the term, because I think the figures are quite clear about bullying occurring anywhere for any child at
any time in any school. So I think that’s an important message for me to take home from this conference.
And that opportunity to share that work and the ideas with Korea and with Canada and Japan, and I understand the United States may be part of this eventually, so it’s that broader sharing that’s most important from my point of view. Thanks Mr. Taki.
TAKI: Thank you. Then shall we go on to Shelley?
CanadaHYMEL: I think that this is a very important and critical study in terms of international comparisons.
Previous studies, some that we’ve talked about today, have demonstrated that rates of bullying differ because we use different words, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly now.
A recent 2002 article by Smith and colleagues comparing the words for bullying across 14 countries, 13
languages, demonstrated that the things that the word “bullying” tends to refer more to physical violence.
Ijime tends to refer more to relational violence. That’s been demonstrated. What our study brings is thefirst, I think, truly international comparison that is made possible because we avoided such terms. We
gave children concrete ideas about behaviours, interpersonal behaviours between two people, and thenwe asked them to describe in fact what they saw, what they experienced in their world. This means this is
the first real comparison that we have about bullying, without using those words, across countries.
And the fact that what we’re finding is the same pattern across countries, despite some variations in rates,
is very striking. We know that the most common forms of bullying across countries are in fact relationaland verbal forms of harassment. Physical violence, both joking and on purpose, is certainly prevalent but
not nearly as dominant. So I think we have to really respect and thank Prof. Taki for bringing us together131to allow this, what I think is going to be a landmark study. Thank you.
TAKI: Thank you. Hee-og, please.
Korea
SIM: As for trends, I want to mention our usage of new categories. We first used the category ‘hitting andkicking jokingly’. It’s a quite new approach. As you can remember, in our country victimization and bullying jokingly was the highest one. But I would never divide these items so it was very impressive. So students from my country, they thought, “It’s just a joke, I didn’t try to do harm to others. It’s just a joke.
I’m just playing around with someone.” So I think we need to emphasize awareness of their behaviour
toward others. It could be very harmful to others, but they don’t know, students and teachers. They didn’t take it seriously so far, so there are a lot of things to do and to be done about bullying and victimization in my country.
TAKI: Thank you very much. So I think we have been able to keep time in a fairly positive fashion. I will
be taking part in the panel discussion later on. I just wanted to share with you what happened yesterday.
In Japan, exclusion was fairly frequent and we were discussing this result. And someone said that there
was another way of looking at the situation. Exclusion, this is harassment. This hurts the other party.
But in Japan, I think children understand that this exclusion is negative. They are at least aware that thisis very bad behaviour and that is why it is so frequent. Maybe in other forms of bullying the children are
not aware that this is bullying per se.
But then I’m not saying we should take comfort from the Japanese statistics because these people are bullying, understanding that this is bullying so this is problematic in its own right. So the situation in Japanand other countries are somewhat different in that Japan has a longer history. I think we cannot have anapple-to-apple type of comparison in terms of frequency. But in the case of Japan, we have a very large
sample, we are able to take a look at the average pattern. In the case of Australia or Canada, there might
be some differences, and it’s somewhat difficult to gain national data at this juncture. So maybe we’reable to extrapolate samples from other regions within the country to take a national sample. But I think
we’re able to draw some comparison. We’re able to develop understanding based on this type of comparison. And I think this is quite important.
Now outside this symposium, the National Institute for Educational Policy Research is actually inviting
experts from the Asia-Pacific for another conference. So I think international cooperation and international comparison can be the basis for future work. As today’s symposium is entitled, “International
Symposium on Education Reform,” I think we should address this issue in the context of educational reform, and I do hope that today’s results are meaningful.
Now we still have another session left. We’ll be having a panel discussion after a break. Thank you foryour patience and we’ll take a break at this juncture.

132

5. Panel Discussion
What We Can Do to Prevent Children
From Turning to Problematic
Behaviour
Panellists:
Keumjoo Kwak
Professor, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University

Jugou Imaizumi
Deputy Director, Student Affairs Division, Elementary andSecondary Education Bureau, MEXT, Japan

Yohji Morita
Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Moderator: Ryuichiro Shirama
Director, Department of Research Planning and Development, NIER

Panel Discussion
What We Can Do to Prevent Children From Turning
to Problematic Behaviour
Panellists:
Keumjoo Kwak
Professor, Department of Psychology, Seoul National University

Jugou Imaizumi
Deputy Director, Student Affairs Division, Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau
MEXT, Japan

Yohji Morita
Professor, Osaka Shoin Women’s University

Mitsuru Taki
Senior Researcher, Guidance and Counselling Research Centre, NIER

Moderator: Ryuichiro Shirama
Director, Department of Research Planning and Development, NIERSHIRAMA: I am Shirama. Good afternoon. I am with NIER. Thank you very much for staying with us
for a long time today and thank you for your kind attention. At the end of today’s program, we would
like to have a panel discussion under the topic of ‘what we can do to prevent children from turning to
problematic behaviour’. We are planning to conduct this panel discussion until 5:30, and I would be
most appreciated for your attention. I will be serving as Moderator for this panel discussion as I was oneof the persons responsible for planning this conference at NIER. So, Please allow me to serve as
Moderator.
We have four panellists today. To my left, in the order that they are seated, I would like to introduce thepanellists. Prof. Yohji Morita who earlier appeared in the dialogue, from Osaka Shoin Women’s
University.
And to the next, I’m sure he is very well-known to you at MEXT, the Deputy Director of the Student
Affairs Division in the Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau of the MEXT, Mr. Jugou Imaizumi.
This division is in charge of children’s problematic behaviour such as bullying.
We have two guests from Korea today, and she is Prof. Keumjoo Kwak from Seoul National University.

135And finally Mr. Taki from NIER. We would now like to start the panel discussion right away.
During the break, we had many questions and suggestions, thank you very much. We are not sure how
many questions we are able to introduce to you today, but we would like to take and ask panellists to address as many questions as possible as we proceed. First, I would like to turn to Prof. Morita. Earlier inthe dialogue session regarding bullying in Japan since the 1980s, you discussed that you are involved inresearch on bullying since the 1980s in Japan. We also have conducted a longitudinal study at NIER andthe results from an international collaborative study were introduced to the audience earlier. Having listened to these reports, what are your observations and comments, Prof. Morita?

Cross-national Comparisons on Onlookers and Reinforcers
MORITA: I have looked at the data, and first of all, there’s a comment that bullying can be occurred toany student, to any class, or to any school. In a way, this is something that we expected, and so not surprising, but I think this is an important point. There was a question from the audiences that bullying behaviour may be human nature or human instinct. I have conducted some surveys over the years.
This is the graph of the onlookers and defenders of the four-tiered structural theory in the cross-national
comparative study in 1998. This study is the comparison between Japan and European countries, in particular England, the Netherlands, and Norway. This is the rate for victimization between 2 terms (4months) in Japan. As was mentioned earlier, there may be a difference of definition in each country, therate was calculated by both the rate for action itself and for the type of actions.

136

Panel Discussion

Japan is lower in rate among the four countries, though at 13.9 per cent seems, in an absolute sense, ahigh level. Among these, there is what we call a progressive type of bullying, suffering over a longer periodof time at a very high frequency. When we look at the rate for this progressive type of bullying, Japan becomes the highest. Although the overall experience of being bullied may be lower in Japan, when it
comes to long-term, persistent bullying, the rate is higher. In other words, in Japan, once children got
bullied, it seems very difficult to escape from the situation. In the UK, on the other hand, the overall rate
is about 40 per cent, but it seems that they are transitory in nature.

Now, we are looking at the four-tiered analysis. This graph shows the rate for onlookers and reinforcers.
There is a conspicuous difference. In the case of Japan, the rate for defenders seems quite high in primaryschools but then declines steadily. In other two countries, however, the rate for defenders starts to increase in secondary schools. In terms of onlookers, the rate in Japan is low in primary schools, and it increases in number as children get older. But in England and the Netherland, on the other hand, the rate
for onlookers starts to decrease in secondary schools. In other words, children no longer pretend not to
notice, but act as a defender to intervene the situation.

137

Of course in the UK and the Netherlands, there are certainly onlookers in primary schools, and protectors
are not always there. As a result, there is bullying. However, in secondary school, there is a substantialchange. In this period, children start to experience the development of self. Considering the tendency ofhuman development, this is the time when children start to develop their social self as a member of acommunity, and at the same time, the sense of responsibility and obligation begin to be formed. Duringthat time, in the case of Japan, there are no defenders for the victim, but in the Netherlands and the UK,
there are defenders. So, with education, we have to change the situation in Japan, and we have to reduce
the number of onlookers and increase the number of defenders. In order to do so, education is important, not only school education but also family and community education.
As indicated here, we see bullying anywhere but we don’t think this is just because of human instinct. We
have some capability of overcoming this, and the key point is how to increase that capability in school, in
communities and in families.
Furthermore, Prof. Hoshino who was one of the research members of our 10,000 survey, commented thatbullying can be occur in any school, in any class, in any child. If this is the case, the next important step is
to find out what are the preconditions to make bullying happen, and what should we control to prevent
bullying to happen. In the earlier 10,000 survey research, we found out that one of the factors of making
bullying happen is the climate of schools, types of teachers and climate of classrooms. In certain climatesof the classrooms, for example, the atmosphere that honest pupils are not rewarded, or the sense of justiceisn’t approved, bullying will occur at a high frequency. Thus, we should now turn our focus to these issues: what are the conditions conducive to bullying or what the disturbing factors for bullying are. If we
can take a further step and study these aspects, then we may be able to control and prevent bullying inschools.

138

Panel Discussion

SHIRAMA: Thank you very much. The possible next research directions and aims were indicated.
As the importance of education in school, community and family was indicated, Mr. Imaizumi, deputydirector who is responsible for school education in the administrative branch, maybe you can offer us
your impression of today’s symposium so far. You might have different perspectives as a non-researcher
but as an administrative. There are also some questions you may be able to cover. Mr. Imaizumi, please.

Bullying Can Happen “in Any School, Any Class and Any child”
IMAIZUMI: Well, as I have participated in this half-day symposium today, I would like to begin with myimpressions so far. First of all, I was able to reconfirm the fact that the attitudes and recognition of the
MEXT towards bullying as administrative or what was understood at the forefront of schools was correct.
I believe that both a longitudinal study and the cross-national study presented today clearly indicated thefact that bullying can occur in any school, any class, and any child, and, this does not require any special
conditions, but it occurs in other countries, though how bullying manifests itself may somewhat differ
from country to country. Also, there were some important findings on how stress can be alleviated.
According to the study, it can be lessened by good interpersonal relationships between parents and children, between teachers and children, and among peers. In other words, good interpersonal relationships
could help to reduce bullying, and that may have been felt intuitively, but I think there is now scientific
data showing the importance of interpersonal relationships. As for bullying, MEXT has taken various
measures already so far, but there has not been such data that endorse our policies before. So, I believe it
is significant that we have such data now.
In today’s symposium, some important data and issues has been presented to several hundred of participants today. But there are 40,000 schools, including primary and lower and upper secondary educationand there are 1 million teachers nationwide, and so, not only to those participated today but we also haveto disseminate information to share nationwide. The MEXT has to focus on this area of providing thesedata to teachers and schools.
The second point is that schools are in an advantageous position and that advantageous position should
be utilized.
Through today’s symposium, our direction, the correctness of MEXT’s policy is proven. Bullying can occur in any school, any class, in any child, and this means that we have to look at each individual child andthat is where our schools can use their advantage. There are 40,000 schools and 1,000,000 licensed andtrained teachers nationwide, compared to only 187 child consultation centres with only 7,000 counsellors.
There are only about 50,000 people who serve as local community counsellors on a voluntary basis as rehabilitation or voluntary probation officers. But there are so many schools and so many teachers nationwide and that is an advantage that we should make use of.
Another advantage of schools is that schools can intervene before the situation gets too serious. As for
consultation centres, cases may be brought to them when it becomes very serious. But in the case ofschools, it is possible to approach the situation before it is too serious, not as educational counselling but
in the way of day-to-day student guidance, and measures can be taken, including preventive measures.

139That is the advantage of schools, and we should be using this advantage of schools by all means. And I reconfirm that this is our task at MEXT.
If I may cite another advantage of school, which is different from family education is that children can interact with those in the same age group as well as those in different age groups, and they can learn fromeach other. This is a pseudo-social experience before children enter into real society. That is the merit oradvantage of schools. This is a group or collective environment, and that environment itself is important
as shown by the data.
SHIRAMA: Thank you. We should use the advantages of schools. At the end, before concluding, we
would like to touch upon that point once again.
Now it may be of a somewhat different subject, but Prof. Kwak is with us from Korea. Prof. Sim alsomentioned that in Korea bullying is now seen as an important problem and there are many policies andmeasures for bullying. As Prof. Sim mentioned that Prof. Kwak will be able to discuss about policies of
Korea, I hope, Prof. Kwak, you can share with us research results and the Korean situation.

Current Situation in Korea
KWAK: My name is Keumjoo Kwak. I am a professor in the Department of Psychology at Seoul National
University. I am so pleased that you invited me to this wonderful symposium. Thanks to Mr. Taki andmany people at NIER. So I’m going to mention the Korean situation briefly.
The history of the study of bullying in Korea is comparatively short. It has been only for the last ten
years. The issue was focused and stayed as a social problem after the death of a middle school student
caused by being bullied in 1995. This was very shocking news in Korea. However, at that time, it wascalled “Korean ijime” because there wasn’t any appropriate term for it. So in my case, I have studied
Korean bullying from that time, maybe ’97 or ’98. However, now the name of Korean bullying is wang-ta,
like ijime in Japan.
After that wang-ta has been a social issue continuously in Korea, scholars have been studying it, but the
government hasn’t been interested in it at all. Eventually, the government has changed. The government
has realized that Korean school violence or wang-ta is getting more serious. These kinds of problems
must be studied without delay. The Korean government has been considering how to cope with school
violence, including wang-ta, and they realized a policy is necessary for protecting students and schools.

140Panel Discussion

Prevention on Bullying
In 2004, the law of school violence prevention was established in Korea, and this law reflects a lots of efforts of the staff of non-government organizations and scholars, including myself. In the law, it is included how to cope within schools when wang-ta has occurred, the way to manage victims and bullies,
and operations of prevention programs in schools. So, all of the schools in Korea must do a prevention
program. Unfortunately, there had not been prevention programs in schools until the law was enforced.

141

In 2005, I developed a prevention program at the request of the Korean Ministry of Education. The program is called “Shim- Bou-oo”, which means “See our friends, helping our friends”. This program is aschool-based program which is divided into two: one is for primary schools, the other is for lower andupper secondary schools. It includes ten sessions for ten minutes each. It is conducted with audio-visualmaterials including various contents, such as experimental scenes, drama form and animation and still
cards, and interviews of professionals and entertainers. These contents make it more interesting and close
to students.

142

Panel Discussion

143

Every session has audio-visual materials. These are some of the characteristics in the program. First, it isa differentiated program that considers developmental stages. This is dealing with cognition and awareness and emotion and behaviour. Second, it is a Korean-style prevention program. On the basis of my research of almost five years, Korea has different educational characteristics, social environment and characteristics of teenagers from other countries. So it is adapted to a real Korean setting. Third, it is a widely
applicable program. It is targeting general students, the bystanders, the bullies and the victims in theclassroom. And it is to be used for teachers without specific training on this program, and it is connected
to a curriculum because most Korean teachers don’t want to give any efforts for this kind of job. And last,
it is an adapted program for the children of digital generation. It is designed for such children to be interested with various audio-visual materials.
I’d like to show you some of the contents of the program. This program will be distributed to all the nation’s primary, and lower and upper secondary school students in Korea in March this year, as the springsemester begins next month in Korea.

144

Panel Discussion

145

I just realized something important in this symposium. As I participated in this meeting, I listened to the
keynote speech and the presentation of the cross-national study of four countries. I realized I couldn’t reflect the results from this survey comparing Japan and Korea on this program. So I’m going to reflect theresults in the next program, I mean the revised program, as collaborative with Japan.

This is my data of 1,006 students from four representative areas in Korea. I find some different factors influencing bullying others. In terms of gender differences, the boys are more affected by peer pressure, but
girls are more influenced by family support. So for the next revision, I’m just thinking of different contents in the revised program for boys and girls.
This is another example. These are the results of Japan and Korea. For girls, seventh grade. As you see,the pattern between Japan and Korea is very similar, so it can be interpreted that the pattern of bullying isvery similar between the two countries. From this result, Korea is able to apply methods used in Japan todecrease ijime. The history of wang-ta, Korean bullying, is comparatively shorter than ijime, where Japan
has already made policies for preventing and overcoming ijime. Also, I think the result of our collaborative study encouraged us to produce a Korean policy for preventing wang-ta. So I would like to have alongitudinal study and I would appreciate having collaboration on this study with Japan and Canada andAustralia. I’m sure our efforts are contributing to stop school violence. Thank you.

146

Panel Discussion

147

SHIRAMA: Thank you very much. We sincerely hope that the results of this survey could be of use inyour activities in Korea going forward. And then I believe it is Mr. Taki’s turn, but since you’ve had thechance to speak on many occasions already, if it’s agreeable with you, we’d like to turn to accept questions
from the floor.
We have already received many questions. So we would like to invite the panellists to comment on thesequestions which we have received.

Comment for Questions from the Floor
TAKI: Yes, it seems that we have two very academic questions. One is about the needs for cross-national
comparison of the cultures of students, which includes the question whether the students in given countries are anti-teacher or pro-teacher. If there is any cross-national comparison of such student attributes,
this might be of use.
Another question raised by audience was that there may be cultural differences in what degree people
consider the same behaviour as problematic. In other words, people in different culture may have different scales to decide how problematic a particular behaviour would be. Perhaps in the course of suchstudies, we will be able to identify which phenomenon are deemed as being problematic behaviours, andI think it is possible to extrapolate to such cultural differences. That may be too simple answers for thequestion, but please allow my response as an answer to these two academic questions.
We focused on bullying in primary and lower secondary schools today, but there are people who interested in bullying in upper-secondary schools, in particular, about the bullying using IT medias such as E-

148

Panel Discussion

mails and mobile phones. Most upper-secondary school students in Japan now have mobile phones, andin that sense, perhaps bullying by mobile phones could become a very serious problem. Some audiences
pointed out that this is already a very serious problem. So, how could we provide instructions and guidelines to the upper-secondary students? There may be more general problem of ‘media-literacy’, but beforehand, we need to teach children, during primary and lower-secondary education, about being moreconsiderate and sympathetic towards others, and at the same time, being in control of self. In fact, we areplanning to study about absenteeism in upper-secondary school next year, and so perhaps in that context
we would be able to take a look at the bullying issue, particularly those with IT medias and mobile phones
as well.
Now we received questions about family issues. How can we address issues related to family? Whatabout stress in the family environment? What about the issue of abuse in families? I believe MEXT is going to be addressing the issue of abuse and domestic violence in the next fiscal year, and in that I thinkproviding support to families with young children at the primary school and kindergarten is very important. I think some supports and activities are already being undertaken but perhaps there is a need for
greater coordination with schools as well as communities. Maybe we can talk about that again later on, as
maybe Mr. Imaizumi will be able to address that.
And, let’s see, there are other questions. It seems that Japan has a higher awareness of bullying, and thatthe study on bullying seems to be ahead of other countries. Why is that? I think it’s just that Japan has alonger history. And also, in overseas countries, the bullying problems tend to consider as one of the issues related to racial discrimination, and was seen as something that was limited to a certain group ofchildren. However, that is not the case in Japan. As Prof. Morita explained, the bullying problem was actually separated from the issue of discrimination or physical violence in Japan. It was touched upon as aself-sufficient category. In other words, bullying in Japan was studied as an issue which covers not justphysical violence, but also so-called ‘indirect aggression or violence’. The indirect form of bullying was
actually first addressed by Japan as a form of bullying, and because we had a very clear theoretical model,
maybe Japan was about ten years ahead in terms of the study into bullying. Prof. Morita, any views on
this matter?
MORITA: I think you’ve already covered this question. In Japan, I believe we not only consider the indirect aggression, but we also focused on the impact of such type of aggression on the children. I mentioned earlier that as we live in our society and community, we are developing the sense of coexisting withothers, befriending with others and cooperating with others. And I think in the past Japanese had respect
for the other members of the community. However, there is now a breakdown in this sense of community and this has led to a sense of urgency.
And also, these tragic incidents are occurring throughout various countries around the world. I believe
this connects to the central focal point in terms of development of children’s capacity. So, yes, theJapanese are very enthusiastic about education. It doesn’t just entail entrance examinations, but I think
the Japanese people have a very strong awareness of the overall needs for education. And the MEXT, theministry was able to address these challenges in their activities. So I think these are some of the unique elements here in Japan. So yes, it is true that Japan was quite ahead in terms of carrying out the study intobullying, and that is because Japanese people have higher awareness of the bullying issue.

149

SHIRAMA: Thank you. Well, while having your comment, there were some elements that I was thinkingof asking you in a following comment.
We would like to go back to the title of this symposium. We have various representatives from academia,
government and schools. What can all of us do to save the children from the risk of violence in schools?
We hope that this symposium can be a catalyst for such activities. And I think we need to wrap up our
discussion at this juncture. Can you share with us your thoughts about some potential academic study
going forward? In other words, through our academic research, how can we actually prevent bullying inschools? I think through our activities we will be able to identify ways in which we can prevent violence inschools, and I do hope that these thoughts could be reflected in the school environment. And also, we
would like to carry out joint activities and joint surveys with various other countries, including Korea. Sothat is my impression having heard the panellists’ comments.
So we’d like to invite each panellist for their final comments as a wrap-up and to finish this panel discussion. So could we invite final comments from each panellist? Prof. Morita, please.
MORITA: There is something called social bond. This means the relationships between people, or between a person and a group of people, or perhaps, between group and group. This is like a string of a social network in our society. I think we need to focus and emphasize this social bond.
Then, what the element of this social bond? Well, we often talk about the attachment between people. As
the data from NIER shows, a support and backups from families and teachers, and peer-to-peer backups
and supports are really important.
But then we should focus not just on the personal relational aspect; we also have to focus on the linkage
with the educational system, a sense of pride belonging to a certain schools, or a sense of attachment to
one’s own group and systems. I think the lack of or the erosion and the weakening of such bonds leads toproblematic behaviours that deviate from the social norms and rules.
This is called ‘social-bond theory’ which originated from the study of juvenile delinquency, and is the ideathat the weakening of linkage to social circles including family as well as to social systems leads to anti-social or problematic behaviour. I think this social bond theory can be applied not just to the issue of juvenile delinquency but it also to the problem of bullying as well as school absenteeism and other problematic behaviour.
The next element is what we call the commitment. There are certain roles that a person plays in the social
context. This social role is one element to link between the individual and the society. This is the rolethat not only individual plays but also a group of people or the society or local communities play. And, by
playing proper role within the society, you could establish a sense of achievement or generate a certain
commitment to the society. You could also have a sense that you are useful to the society, and making acontribution to the society. We’re not talking about just fulfilling a role which is imposed on you. For example, if a person is very good at accounting, the third parties must have the expectation that this person
is very good at accounting. Therefore, you have the third parties who expect something from you, andthat generates a sense that you have to fulfil certain responsibilities. I think this is the important role ofcommitment.

150

Panel Discussion

Another element is involvement. This is not just about the roles or the activities for the future, but isabout the activities which are taking place right now and how the person could involve the activities. So,
it could be classes at school, for instance, you have to make your classes more interesting and fun, so thatchildren wants to get involved in such interesting classes, or may be local cultural activities. Throughthese activities, children are able to establish a sense of belonging, a sense of connection to the society, tothe people, and to their peers, and which in turn, ensuring a sense of belonging to a community or to asociety that I have been repeating today.
There is also a need to adhere to certain norms and rules. This is not only rules and regulations, but it
also includes basic life styles or learning habits. By acquiring these, children could learn norms, rules andregulations of school, local communities, and the society as a whole. This process can also be considered
the linkage to the society, and this can be applied to the group activities at school as the school or the classis created in the same way. Thus, this inter-relationship, the interlink, the support, the differing interests,
we have to balance all of these factors, and at the same time, we have to ensure a sense of connection
among the children.
There is a question regarding bullying in upper-secondary schools, in particular, in their after-schoolclub-activities. Now this of course is a serious issue. But then this entails not just bullying but also criminal activities and juvenile delinquencies. Both in Japan and in the United States, the peak criminal rate isseen at the age between 14 and 15, and then it starts to come down after that age. But in Japan, up until
now, after the age of 14 and 15, the criminal rate would decline rather rapidly, while in the United States,
the drop is much more gradual. However, in Japan today, according to the data from National ResearchInstitute of Police Science, we find that the level of the drop in the crime rate is now beginning to be morecomparable to that in the United States. This means that older age group of juvenile delinquents are actually expanding. The most of these children are what we call NEET (Not in Education, Employment orTraining), or part-time workers who often have very little, if any, connections to the society. There areChildren who do not want to attend schools or do not care about schools, and even their parents may
have negative attitudes towards schools or local communities, and refuse to have any connections to thesociety. These people are actually expanding in our society.
So, it’s not just that our society is losing its sense of community, but I think individuals are beginning tolose a sense of connection, a sense of useful connection to the community. In the past we had this linkage, the bond to the society, but that is no longer the case. I think we need to allow people to find a senseof purpose, motivation, and fulfilment in a given in a given group or a society or the school. How do wecreate such links and connections? The schools must be able to absorb and attract the children with its
environments, but we must not use chains to force them to attend schools, but we must be able to instil asense of purpose to the children. The schools must equip the children with such capacity and ability. This
is not just a problem relating to the schools, but it is an issue that we, all the groups and people in the society here in Japan faced with. So for that, we need to enhance social bonds, and to identify ways inwhich this could be achieved. Having seen the data we have today, that message becomes very clear.
SHIRAMA: Thank you very much. You talked about the social bonds. Mr. Imaizumi, would you like torespond?

151

IMAIZUMI: Yes, as we cooperate with Prof. Morita for the committee of the MEXT, his idea of social
bonds has been reflected in our policies at the government. Now we have received some comments frommembers of the audience. There were two comments. One is that homeroom teachers must be dignified
and must have strong resolve in addressing these issues. And the second comment is that bullying is simply a reflection of what goes on in adult society, and so the issues must be resolved firstly in adult society.
I totally agree to the comment that the bullying issue is simply a reflection of what goes on in the societyof adults. The problematic behaviour including bullying reflects various social factors and variables. For
example, social bonds are being lost, as was pointed out by Prof. Morita. I believe all of these problems
that we talked about today have become very clear through our children. But these issues cannot be resolved at schools alone. It is not something that the educational system alone can address. For example,
according to the report from the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, about 73% ofchildren in reformatory have an experience of abuse. It cannot necessarily be said that having received thedomestic violence and abuse directly leads to violence, however, those with problematic behaviours dooften have an abusive background. So, this chain or the linkage of violence must be disconnected, and inorder to do so, we have to have a very strong educational system. But then there are elements which
could not be covered by the education.
Then, the question is what we should do next within what we can do. I think as a countermeasure, weneed to focus more preventive measures. We need to make sure that all children will not become onlookers or aggressors or victims in the first place, and for that we need encouragement at schools as well as
within the family environment.
It is also important to consider the questions such as 1) if unfortunately the problems occur, how weshould invent such problems; 2) how can teachers and parents identify the change in the behaviour of
their children?; 3) as we need skills to identify those changes, how can we equip ourselves with suchskills?; 4) as we cannot leave the problem and let it evolve into more serious problems, what can we do asa way of assessment at the school environment?; and 5) how could we approach the aggressors and thevictims, and what are the roles to be played by the school counsellors, related institutions, and school
nurses?
And also, on a daily basis we need to address these problematic behaviours with such skills and techniques, and in the course of such daily instructions, I think the homeroom teacher, plays a very criticalrole. But again, classroom teachers alone cannot always resolve these problems. The more serious the
problem is, the more difficult for teachers to solve it alone as it simply goes beyond the ability of theschool teacher. In such cases, we need to think how we should normalize the situation. For aggressors, being banned from attending schools could be one measure, and for victims, providing thorough protections by changing the class assignments, or in the worst case, encouraging transferring to another school
could be considered. In other words, we need to ensure to protect our children at all costs.
Furthermore, as our goal is to nurture children, including both bullies and victims, so that eventually they
could become self-sufficient, independent adults, we need to conduct the prognosis guidance for recovery
guidance. For the aggressors, I think we need to provide training support so that they could actually become self-sufficient, and for those children who refuse to come to school because of the bulling issues,152

Panel Discussion

again we need to take separate measures to address their problems.
What we want to see is that the children eventually grow to being self-independent adults. We need togive thought to all of these issues. What I’m trying to say is that we need synthetic guidance including
prevention, urgent intervention, and after care, and for those that education can do, we should use theadvantages of schools that I talked about earlier. For those that cannot be solved by education alone, weneed to cooperate with police, child-consultation centre and children’s welfare centre, or with people
with medical care centre such as psychiatrist and psychotherapists.
Thank you. That is all.
SHIRAMA: Thank you. I’m afraid we have gone beyond the time. Prof. Kwak? You have talked about
the study you carried out in Korea as well as intervention programs and the governmental situation for
the issue in Korea. You have heard various comments on the issue of bullying so far, can you share withus your final comments as to the impression of today’s symposium? Thank you.
KWAK: Thank you. I would like to say one thing. My impression is that from the comparative studies
we found some similarities as well as some differences. As these results are such academically importantresults, the next time, we have to try to reflect those results to the policy making or to help children in theschool. We have to try to do that in the near future. That’s all. Thank you.
SHIRAMA: Thank you very much. We would like to have one word of summary from Mr. Taki, and to
ask Prof. Morita to give us concluding remarks.
TAKI: The study results presented Today is very wide-ranging and it may be somewhat distant to manyof the members in the audience. But our mission is to provide information that is useful to policy-making
in MEXT, and at the same time, in order for MEXT policies to function very well, we have the task of assisting and suggesting to MEXT. There are various programs introduced by MEXT, for example, handson experience in nature. If we conduct such programs, will there be an effect immediately? Well, notnecessarily. Programs have to be implemented and some creative ideas will be necessary for these programs to be truly effective. We therefore not only conduct this research which is very academic, but wealso do something in between linking academic research results and what is done in the actual environment of schools. But I hope I will be able to discuss that linking aspect on another opportunity.
SHIRAMA: Prof. Morita, Please?
MORITA: The symposium today is co-organized by MEXT and NIER, and as Mr. Taki pointed out,
there are tasks of NIER. Now the government starts to take the evidence-based policy, the policies developed based on evidence. This is in fact the world-wide trend these days. In that sense I think today’s symposium was very useful and significant, and the co-operation and co-organization of the Ministry and the
National Institute on Educational Policy Research is very meaningful. And what is important is the cooperation of researchers like myself and national institute like NIER, and governmental administration
like MEXT. The three parties should be working together for children in schools, and we should try to use
validated data as long as possible. We may not have data 100 per cent of the time but it should be evidence-based when we try to develop policies and prevention and intervention measures. In that sense, I

153

think this symposium was very important.
SHIRAMA: I was wondering how I can summarize today’s symposium, but Prof. Morita did a wonderful
job of summarizing. As we have gone beyond the scheduled time, I would like to thank all of the participants and I hope that today’s symposium has been informative to participants. So that gives us a great
sense of pleasure. Thank you very much for staying with us. This concludes today’s panel discussion.
MC: Thank you very much, Mr. Shirama. Prof. Kwak, Prof. Morita, Mr. Imaizumi, thank you verymuch. This concludes all of the sessions in today’s program. Thank you very much for your kind patience over a very long period of time. As for information material today, there are some extra copies. If
you wish to take home an extra copy, please come to reception.
As for simultaneous interpretation receivers and questionnaires, please return the receivers and questionnaires as you exit this hall. There will be staff who will be receiving the interpretation receivers and questionnaires. You may forget that you have an interpretation receiver in your breast pocket. Please makesure to return the receiver. Thank you very much.

154

Afterword

Afterword
When people heard about the international symposium on bullying and other problematic behaviour,
what contents people would expect may vary depending on the person. Although there may be a common interest in information about overseas’ countries which difficult to find in Japan, some would expect
more academic side of information to enhance their knowledge and education, while some would expect
more practical side of information that could help to solve the problem they are facing with in a daily life.
Further, even among those who long to have practical information, there may be various different reasons. For example, there may be school teachers who wish to learn the latest techniques and skills totackle the problem, or those from education centres who wish to learn various different intervention programs proved to be effective in overseas, or may be people from the local educational boards who wish tolearn policies and educational lows, or school counsellors who wish to learn the roles of school counsellors in relation to bullying problem, or there may be people who wish to know how they could protect
their own child from the risk of bullying. In other words, according to their standpoints, or the problems
they are facing with, their expectation towards our symposium greatly varies.
One of the major concerns for us to organise this symposium was, therefore, within the limited timeschedule, to where we should put our focus on so as to make this opportunity the most meaningful andsignificant international symposium. As this is the second international symposium for both the NIER
and the MEXT (the former National Institute for Educational Research and the former Ministry of
Education respectively), both of which organised and co-sponsored the International Symposium on
Bullying 10 years ago, there must be a high expectation towards our tasks to look back on the trend of thelast 10 years and at the same time, to show the clear indication of the directions for next 10 years.
Thus, we decided the basic rules that we will not make this symposium a stage-like where the situation inoverseas are introduced one by one. You may probably find this as little strange, but there are two major
reasons for this.
Firstly, in the international symposium like this where people talk to each other through interpreter, it isextremely difficult to communicate the situation in overseas accurately to one another, especially within
only a limited time schedule. Disseminating and exchanging information of overseas will not be worth
doing unless you understand firstly the similarities and differences in its educational and social systems,
cultures and norms that the information is based on, and secondly the limitations in terms of both thecontents and the rage of information you can compare. Even after you understand all of these background factors, you should carefully choose the correct terminology to communicate one another. Evenin an international conference where participants are expected to share the basic knowledge and information about the topic, it is not rare for participants to develop irrelevant discussion or for audiences to takeinformation without realising their own misunderstanding. There must be higher risk of such misunderstanding in this particular symposium as we expected much wider range of audiences. If you expect too

157much, as much information as possible from as many countries as possible, for instance, it would just end
up with higher risk of misunderstanding and miscommunication.
The second reason was the fact that bullying research in Japan is going ahead of those overseas’ countries,
and it is rather difficult to expect the latest information from them. We have had more than 20 years of
research history on bullying, and we even held the first national level international symposium on bullying 10 years ago. Since then, while taking the international knowledge and experiences into consideration,
we have been tackling to the issue of bullying for decades. Thus, what we should do at this point is to actively communicate our knowledge and experiences to overseas, and to accept the responses, and to develop the directions for better and more effective measures. We should not passively expect for overseas’countries to give us information, otherwise there would be very little chance for us to develop appropriate
directions.
Thus, in this international symposium, we decided to put the cross-national study, which developed on
the basis of our accumulation of data and organised with our initiatives, centre of the symposium, and to
exchange information on the basis of this cross-national study. We believed that we can exchange information more accurately with the data from which the possibility of comparison is guaranteed, in comparison to the exchange of free opinions without restriction.
As I was noted in the symposium, the NIER has been developed three practical researches, which wasstarted by the influence of researches in overseas. Firstly, the intervention programs which can be implemented at school, and secondly, the program which aims to prevent bullying behaviour by developingchildren’s sociality, and finally the questionnaire which aims to detect and analyse the background causesof bullying. As a result of these practical researches, we developed ‘P.E.C.E. Method’, ‘Japanese Peer
Support Program’, and ‘Stress Check List’ all of which were reported in the international forum of students’ guidance organised by the NIER (Note: the contents of this forum can be found in “Better schooling by teachers, children, and local community - Promotion of Preventive Education - , Guidance andCounselling Research Centre, NIER).
We have simultaneously been conducting the 6-year-follow-up longitudinal study that cannot be foundin any other countries. This very distinctive 6-year-longitudinal study was planned and conducted aiming
to scientifically prove the very authentic notion that ‘serious bullying can happen to any school, to anyclass, to any children’ appealed by the MEXT, and at the same time, to find out the background causesthat make ordinal children conduct bullying behaviour.
As we were able to draw a picture of the situation in Japan through this 6-year longitudinal study, and at
the same time, we proved the correctness of the notion that serious bullying can happen to any school, toany class and to any child, the next step for us was to conduct cross-national comparative study with our
initiatives. If our basic understanding on bullying was something very unique to Japan, we should warn
people who try to import the policies and intervention programs from overseas without full consideration. However, on the other hand, if our basic understanding of the issue could apply to the situation inother countries, we could deepen the exchange with such overseas countries, referring their efforts andpolicies, and at the same time, we could play a role to actively communicate our policies and knowledge
to the world. If there are both similarities and differences, we should clarify what we can share with and158

Afterword

what we cannot.
One of the biggest aims of this international symposium was to report the process of this series of researches and its findings, and to make an opportunity for people in administration, schools, or academics
to think seriously together from their own standpoints about what we can do to save children from therisk of bullying and violence. This is the reason why we had a rather different symposium this time compared to ordinal international symposium which try to introduce the efforts in overseas one by one.
Though, it is rather difficult for us to complete our aims just for a half-day symposium, this report is issued to fill the gaps in. We hope more people who were not able to attend the symposium can use the results and findings of the NIER.

159

Appendix
Items of the Questionnaire
The Definition of Ijime
Definition by Yohji Morita
Definition by Dan Olweus
Definition for NIER Survey
Definition for children in the Questionnaire
for NIER Survey

Appendix
Items of the Questionnaire
The Definition of Ijime
Definition by Yohji Morita
Definition by Dan Olweus
Definition for NIER Survey
Definition for children in the Questionnaire for NIER Survey

I Items of the Questionnaire
Bullying Scaleby excluding, ignoring you *by teasing, calling names *by pushing, hitting(jokingly) **by pushing, hitting(on purpose)by taking and damaging your property
by using computer, email* & ** for AMOS

can’t understand my lessons
get low test results
Source of Stress Scale: Teacher
teachers tell me offteachers take a personal interest*
teachers don’t treat me fairly
Source of Stress Scale: Peerput me down because of my school marks
put me down because of the way I lookclassmates call me names

Symptoms of Stress Scalefeel sick and tired
worry about things
get irritated
don’t have much energy
get sick a lot
feel very lonely
get angry easily
don’t feel interested
get headaches
get depressedfeel like shouting
can’t concentrate on school work

Source of Stress Scale: Family
importance is put on doing well at school
get nagged in my family
my family expects too much
Social Support Scale: Teacher
If I left out I am encouraged
If I express I am listened
try to understand me
Social Support Scale: Peer
If I left out I am encouraged
If I express I am listened
try to understand me

Competitive Views Scale
unhappy if not do better in my school-work
unhappy if not look better than classmates
unhappy if not do better at sport and hobby

Social Support Scale: Family
If I left out I am encouraged
If I express I am listened
try to understand me

Source of Stress Scale: Studyteachers ask me questions I can’t answer

163

The Definition of Ijime
Definition by Yohji Morita‘A type of aggressive behaviour by (which) someone who holds a dominant position in a group-interaction process, by intentional or collective acts, causes mental and/or physical suffering to another inside agroup.’ (Morita 1985)
Definition by Dan Olweus‘A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative
actions on the part of one or more other students.’‘It is a negative action when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, injury or discomfort
upon another - basically what is implied in the definition of aggressive behaviour’‘In order to use the term bullying, there should be an imbalance in strength (an asymmetric power relationship).’ (Olweus 1993)
Definition for NIER Survey‘Ijime bullying’ is mean behaviour or a negative attitude that has clear intention to embarrass or humiliate others who occupy weaker positions in a same group. It is assumed to be a dynamic used to keep or
recover one’s dignity by aggrieving others. Consequently, its main purpose is to inflict mental suffering
on others, regardless of the form such as physical, verbal, psychological and social.’
The three conditions for serious ‘Ijime bullying’: ‘membership’, ‘use the power of exchangeable status’,‘frequency of victimization’Definition for children in the Questionnaire for NIER Survey
Students can be very mean to one another at school. Mean and negative behaviour can be especially upsetting and embarrassing when it happens over and over again, either by one person or by many different
people in the group. We want to know about times when students use mean behaviour and take advantage of other students who cannot defend themselves easily.

164