Abstract

This paper sought to give a critique of an article in the journal of psychology, health, and medicine concerning the topic of bullying. The paper began by analyzing the importance of the journal article and why it was written. It observed that the article was written with the aim of defining bullying and identifying its prevalence and how it is affected by gender differences. The article also studied the risk factors of bullying and the possible solutions to bullying. This paper then did a critical analysis of the article and found out that though the article addressed the most pertinent issues in bullying, it failed to address some aspects of bullying, such as cyberbullying. Besides, the article did not effectively address the health effects of bullying and the solutions for bullying. Therefore, this paper recommended that future studies focus more on longitudinal studies concerning the effects of bullying as well as further studies concerning the solutions for bullying.

Introduction

The issue of bullying in schools and the knowledge state and possible interventions was studied in the Journal of Psychology, health, and medicine. The article sought to contribute to the existing researches concerning bullying in schools by carrying out research concerning the available knowledge about the state of bullying and the possible solutions towards the issue.

The article identified three possible approaches that would be used to explain the reasons for bullying. The approaches that the paper gave could be identified as the possible reasons that led to bullying in schools. These were repetition, intentional bullying, and the lack of balance in power (Menesini, 2017). The article defined bullying as a situation in which the peers abused their powers and referred to the issue as a serious global challenge.

The paper studied the prevalence of bullying in schools, the age in which it was common, gender differences as well as the types of bullying that were popular. The paper was also important in its explanation concerning the span for which bullying lasts and the reasons behind its occurrence (Menesini, 2017). To achieve its objectives, the paper used surveys that had been carried out in large western countries as well as middle-level and low-income countries, which enhances its credibility and applicability.

Due to variations in the prevalence, the paper mainly focused on the definition of bullying, its frequency, and the span. Therefore, the study is a key foundation and pillar for future studies concerning bullying. This is because it outlines various topics that any scholar may seek to understand concerning bullying. It gives a foundation to the study about the causes of bullying. This is very crucial as it is upon the findings that we can provide a solution to bullying. The paper also gives major insights concerning other matters of concern, such as bullying prevalence.

Literature review

The article began by defining the meaning of bullying. Bullying was defined as aggressive and intentional behavior that is done repeatedly by a person or group for a victim who is defenseless (Menesini, 2017). Though the definition may have differed from what other articles defined the term, the general acceptance is that bullying has to be intentional and must be aimed at harming another person due to the power imbalance that exists between the two people.

The article also discussed the prevalence of bullying at that time. One of the challenges that were identified in the estimation of the challenges of bullying is the variations in the metrics of measurements. Therefore, the criteria for estimating bullying across different studies would differ. However, the rate of bullying was at 20-25 percent by the year 2014. This represented the number of youths who were either victims or the perpetrators of bullying. Comprehensive researches in western nations observed that about 9-25% of the children who have attained the school-age (Menesini, 2017). Other estimates indicated that by 2014, 35% of the sample selected was involved in traditional forms of bullying, while those involved in cyberbullying were around 15%.