Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes: Preclusion to the framework for a teacher-led antibullying intervention [original]

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational

institutes: Preclusion to the framework for a

teacher-led antibullying intervention

Sohni SiddiquiID*, Anja Schultze-Krumbholz

Department of Educational Psychology, Technische Universita

¨t Berlin, Berlin, Germany

*[email protected]u-berlin.de

Abstract

Increasing reports of bullying and cyberbullying in schools in recent years are undeniable

and have been recognized as a serious public health problem. Conventional bullying and

cyberbullying are not only a problem in higher educational institutions in Pakistan, but also in

primary and secondary schools. Although statistics show higher levels of bullying and

cyber-risky behaviors among youth, policies and interventions to control the consequences

of conventional and cyberbullying are rare in the Pakistani context. This study explores

teachers’ perspectives and experiences in identifying bullying strategies in different school

contexts. Four hundred fifty-four teachers working in different educational institutions com-

pleted an online survey that provided data to draw conclusions and to get a better sense of

the situation in educational institutions in Pakistan. According to the results, teachers experi-

ence verbal and social bullying more frequently than online and physical bullying. In addi-

tion, teachers in lower grades reported noticing more physical bullying than teachers in

higher grades. Facebook was reported to be the most common platform students used to

bully each other. Researchers also found significant differences between rural and urban

teachers’ experiences with social bullying. Bullying intervention strategies should be devel-

oped and integrated into educational settings in Pakistan. The data presented will be used

to develop tailored anti-bullying interventions that are culturally and socially appropriate for

Pakistani educational settings.

Introduction

Aggression is a set of actions that are considered a significant challenge for society to deal with

and are defined by social psychology as any behavior aimed at harming a person or animal [1].

If there is no immediate intervention, some of these aggressive behaviours, can lead to serious

societal consequences, such as extreme forms of bullying or irreversible negative effects such

as delinquency [2]. Bullying is a repeated aggressive behavior with the intention to afflict phys-

ical, emotional, or mental harm and usually results from a power imbalance [3]. To differenti-

ate, bullying others without using electronic or digital means is nowadays considered to be

“traditional bullying”; when technology is used to intentionally harm others, it is referred to as

PLOS ONE

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 1 / 23

a1111111111

OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Siddiqui S, Schultze-Krumbholz A (2023)

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational

institutes: Preclusion to the framework for a

teacher-led antibullying intervention. PLoS ONE

18(4): e0284864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0284864

Editor: Faisal Shafique Butt, COMSATS University

Islamabad - Wah Campus, PAKISTAN

Received: December 23, 2022

Accepted: April 11, 2023

Published: April 27, 2023

Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the

benefits of transparency in the peer review

process; therefore, we enable the publication of

all of the content of peer review and author

responses alongside final, published articles. The

editorial history of this article is available here:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864

This is an open access article distributed under the

terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License, which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original author and source are

credited.

Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are

within the paper.

cyberbullying. School bullying and neighborhood bullying are two examples of traditional bul-

lying, while cyberbullying is a result of technology, such as the Internet [4].

Traditional bullying, or face-to-face bullying, is further subdivided into physical, verbal, or

social/emotional/relational bullying. Acts such as hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, and

pushing or damaging property are considered different forms of physical bullying. Contrarily,

name-calling, insults, use of swear words, teasing, intimidation, and rude remarks are different

kinds of verbal abuse or verbal bullying. Social bullying, sometimes referred to as covert/rela-

tional or emotional bullying, is often challenging to recognize and can be carried out behind

the bullied person’s back. It is designed to harm someone’s social reputation and/or to cause

them humiliation. The most common types of this behavior include lying and spreading

rumors, negative facial or physical gestures, menacing or contemptuous looks, playing nasty

jokes to embarrass and humiliate, mimicking unkindly, encouraging others to socially exclude

someone, damaging someone’s social reputation, or affecting acceptance of the person [5].

The advent of technology and frequent internet usage has introduced a more technologi-

cally-oriented form of aggression known as cyber aggression [6]. It is defined as ‘intentional

harm delivered by the use of electronic means to a person or a group of people irrespective

of their age who perceive(s) such acts as offensive, derogatory, harmful or unwanted’ [7].

Englander et al. (2017) defined cyberbullying as willful and repeated harm inflicted upon a vic-

tim through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices [8]. Even though

several initiatives and interventions have been designed to prevent and control this harmful

behavior, the rate of cyberbullying and traditional bullying continues to rise around the world

[9]. Facebook statistics revealed that between 2017 and 2021, harassment-related posts con-

stantly increased [10]. Delgado (2020) also reported that abusive language among children and

teens rose by 70% and more soon after engagement in online classes [11]. Moreover, as school

work had to be done from home, traditional bullying was replaced by cyberbullying in house-

holds [12].

The issue of bullying and cyberbullying has gained prominence worldwide, but for educa-

tional institutions in Pakistan, this matter has yet to be studied in depth. Additionally, the vast

majority of the data collected and published are based on respondents’ self-reports, which may

be skewed by social desirability biases or misremembrance issues, thus undermining validity.

The aim of this article is to discuss the range of traditional bullying and cyberbullying and

their concomitants in Pakistan’s educational system by including experiences of teachers

working at different educational institutions. Moreover, the need for a socially and culturally

adapted/newly developed bullying intervention will be discussed by revisiting steps and inter-

ventions taken in the past and the data gathered from teachers.

Theoretical background

The theoretical basis for explaining the concept of bullying and aggression

Aggression is a broad term comprising multiple constructs and is not just limited to behavior

evaluated at the symptom level [13]. Aggression is also described from a variety of perspectives

including antisocial behavior, juvenile delinquency, coercion, assertiveness, or bullying [14].

Gay (1999) summarized the concept of the Psychoanalytical Theory presented by Sigmund

Freud in the late 19th century and stated that aggression is an innate and fundamental feeling

which is a part of human nature; it is essential for defense and the fight for dominance [15].

Pinker (2012) supported Freud’s concept and explained that the motive behind bullying is the

need for power, which is a special kind of instrumental violence that is inherent in human

nature [16,17]. Dehue (2013); Slonje et al., (2013) reported that traditional bullying and cyber-

bullying behaviors constitute unjustified aggression, based on power imbalance, and continue

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 2 / 23

Funding: The funders had no role in study design,

data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or

preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared

that no competing interests exist.

over time [18,19]. A psychoanalytic model explains that human nature is always seeking supe-

riority, and bullying is a way of displaying authority and showcasing prestigiousness.

In early studies, one of the other main factors being considered was frustration as a cause

of aggression [20]. Similarly, Agnew (1992) developed a General Strain Theory and defined

strain as events or conditions that individuals dislike, with strains also classified as the inability

to achieve desired goals, the presentation of harmful or negatively valued stimuli, and the loss

of desirable stimuli [21]. All these strains can be seen as major contributors to a perpetrator’s

involvement in bullying behavior and victims’ transformation into perpetrators. The literature

has elaborated that bullying and cyberbullying are generally associated with people who have

been maltreated or have a higher level of anxiety, academic difficulties, passive aggressive

behaviors, and internalizing and externalizing problems than their peers [22–24].

Albert Bandura introduced the concept of social learning in the development of aggression.

He further elaborated that interventions designed to modify behavior via rewards and punish-

ment were incomplete for explaining the development of behaviors, as humans tend to mimic

others and learn from them [25]. Garandeau and Cillessen (2006) explained that perpetrators

are popular and considered to have competent social-cognitive skills [26]. The desire for

supremacy and high status are some of the motives behind bullying others [27]. Bystanders

often mimic bullies to gain the same social influence as they perceive a bully’s fame and peers’

anxiety about becoming the next victim.

Another theory regarding child behavior is the Social Information Processing Theory (SIP),

which examines how children and teenagers process information in social contexts. According

to SIP, children with disruptive behavior problems perceive, interpret, and make decisions

about social information in a way that increases their likelihood of engaging in aggressive

behavior [28]. Attachment problems or coercive cycles could explain such difficulties with

interpersonal processing. Similarly, coercive parenting can explain harsh parental behavior

such as hitting, yelling, scolding, threatening, rejection, and psychological control to achieve

compliance from the child. As an example of how social information processing theory is

applied, a child may assume another child intentionally pushed them in the lunch line rather

than assuming it was an accident.

Social Interaction Theory proposed by Tedeschi and Felson (1994) demonstrated aggres-

sion as psychologically influenced behavior aimed at changing the target’s behavior [29].

These actions are used by a perpetrator to obtain something valuable such as money, goods,

information, services, or to achieve desired social or self-identity. Anderson and Bushman

(2002) introduced the General aggression model (GAM) that integrated existing mini-theories

of aggression into an amalgamated whole. This model is more comprehensive, explains aggres-

sive acts based on multiple motives, and provides broader insights into child-rearing and

development issues [30].

Status and frequency of bullying and cyberbullying in Pakistan

The increase of bullying and cyberbullying in academic settings in recent years is indisputable

[31] and has been established as a serious public health problem [32], with long-term negative

effects on physical and mental health [33]. Similarly, traditional and cyberbullying have not

only found their way into Pakistan’s higher educational institutions, but appear in primary

and secondary schools as well [34,35]. Various investigations have shown that bullying and

cyberbullying are common practices in Pakistan’s educational institutions and have affected

the physical, emotional, and mental health of students.

Saleem et al. (2021) report that the level of cyberbullying has substantially increased in edu-

cational institutions in Pakistan [35]. Data gathered from universities of the province of Sindh

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 3 / 23

has confirmed that cyberbullying is common in urban universities. Previously, Musharraf and

Anis-ul-Haque (2018) also supported the findings of [35] and found that more than 60% of

university students were involved in cyberbullying behavior [36]. Similarly, Mirza et al. (2020)

found that cyberbullying is ubiquitous in higher educational institutions [37].

Saleem et al. (2021) added that substantial differences in victimization and perpetrators

were found with respect to socioeconomic status and access to the Internet [35]. Further, Rafi

(2019) reports that linguistic skills were exploited by the aggressors to victimize the partici-

pants [38]. Young social media addicts often have offline disputes, which becomes the rudi-

mental rationale for cyber-associated behaviour [38–40]. Although studies concluded that

boys are more involved in perpetration and victimization, researchers have reported that

females have also been victimized through conventional and online media. Magsi et al. (2017)

found that females in universities are also being scoffed at and harassed using electronic

media, but about half of the victims do not disclose this due to cultural and religious restraints

and to protect themselves from being blamed as immoral [41]. Women suffer in silence and

as a self-defense leave activities that are taking play in cyberspace. Lack of knowledge about

how to handle cyberbullying and lack of trust in law enforcement agencies are additional

important factors that encourage bullies to victimize women in urban university settings. It is

also reported that females are more susceptible to developing anxiousness due to cyber victimi-

zation as compared to their male counterparts [36]. Additionally, both targets of bullying and

offenders of bullying experienced adverse emotional and social consequences. Bullying perpe-

trators exhibited a greater severity of depressive symptoms due to problems in psychosocial

functioning [42].

Bullying and cyberbullying is not limited to the university level but have permeated the

schooling system in Pakistan [34,42–45]. Khawaja et al. (2015) found that violence in the form

of physical and verbal abuse is commonplace in major cities and provincial capitals [44]. Asif

(2016) further added that bullying and victimization are also associated with poor academic

performance [46] and they are one of the causes of the high dropout rate in schools [45].

Murshid (2017) and Musharraf and Anis-ul-Haque (2018) reported that victimization is

the major cause of mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression among youth in Paki-

stan, while low to middle-income countries like Pakistan have limited resources to address

such mental issues [47,48]. It is recommended in recent publications [6,35,49,50] to build

support centers in academic settings to deal with bullying and cyberbullying situations and to

implement anti-bullying interventions. The goal of these centers is to raise students’ awareness

of prevention and coping measures. In Pakistan, interventions should be tailored to the coun-

try’s specific circumstances.

Sources of frustration-aggression in Pakistani society

Dollard et al. (1939) considered that frustration and dissatisfaction are the main causes of

aggression development [51]. In continuation, the concept of displaced aggression described

by Denson et al. (2006) also explains how the level of frustration redirects aggression to an

alternative target to cope with stress [52]. Moreover, Patchin and Hinduja (2011) explained

bullying behaviour in terms of the General Strain Theory (Agnew, 1992) that argues that indi-

viduals who experience strain feel angry or frustrated as a result and are more at risk to engage

in criminal, deviant or bullying behavior [21,53]. Correspondingly, traditional bullying and

cyberbullying are more common among people who are traditionally or cyber victimized,

show a high level of anxiety, academic difficulties, passive-aggressive behaviours, and internal-

izing and externalizing problems than among their peers [22–24]. Husain (2000) reported that

post-independence economic development has predominantly benefited a small class of the

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 4 / 23

elite, while the majority of the population remains uneducated and poor [54]. Unemployment,

accelerating inflation, uncontrolled population growth and low literacy rates are some addi-

tional enduring factors in the declining standard of living of Pakistan’s major population [55,

56]. Rapid urbanization, limited and insecure water supply [57], food insecurity and malnutri-

tion [58] are some of the additional factors that contribute to rising aggression in Pakistan’s

society. Empirically, it is reported that there is a high prevalence of behavioral problems and

emotional and behavioral difficulties among Pakistani school children [34].

Supporting the statements of [34] and elaborating the reasons behind the behavioral prob-

lems of children, Asad et al. (2017) and Karmaliani et al. (2017) emphasized that peer violence

in Pakistan is rooted in poverty and the socialization of children, especially at home [59,60].

Murshid (2018) reported that one of the reasons for victimization is poor hygiene that indi-

cates victims’ disadvantaged social class to bullies [61].

Malik and Abdullah (2017) concluded on the basis of information gathered from teachers

and students that violent programs on TV, news and discussions on unemployment, under-

employment, and other socio-political problems were a major source of aggression among

youths in Pakistan [62]. Concerning bullying, the majority of students, as well as teachers,

rated verbal bullying to be a catalyst for aggression.

Interestingly, despite low economic conditions in Pakistan, internet use has significantly

increased in the past two decades. In 2001, only 1.3% of the population used the internet [63],

but by 2012, Pakistan was at the top 20

position in the world in terms of internet users [64].

One of the major reasons for the spread of the internet is the huge competition in the ISP

(Internet Service Providers) and telecommunication market. The easy availability of WIFI [65]

and accessibility of smartphones at ever cheaper rates have caused the number of mobile inter-

net users to increase consistently [66].

Status and conditions of interventions in Pakistan’s context

International investigations have indicated that countries with a higher prevalence of face-to-

face traditional bullying have a high level of cyberbullying as well [67]. Cyberbullying seems to

co-occur with traditional bullying [24] and interventions should be pertinent for managing

both types of bullying, otherwise, several studies have shown that controlling one form of bul-

lying can lead to the perpetrator engaging in other forms of bullying [68,69]. Many of the

interventions dealing with traditional school bullying are modified for tackling cyberbullying

issues on the presumptions of similarities in both types of bullying behaviour. Both constitute

unjustified aggression, based on a power imbalance, and persist over time. Repetition criteria

are debated among scientists as it is not as obvious in cyberbullying as it is in traditional bully-

ing [18,19].

The Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) of Pakistan has reported that delinquency related

to the internet is constantly rising [70]. Although statistics have unveiled a higher number of

cyber risks behaviours especially in youngsters, interventions designed to control cyberbully-

ing and consequences are substandard so far in Pakistan’s context [35]. Similarly, despite a

high frequency and concerns about bullying and victimization as a public health issue in low-

and middle-income countries in addition to the chronicity of behavioral problems there are

limited policies and interventions designed, implemented, and evaluated [34]. One of the

effective trials conducted by McFarlane et al. (2017) was the application of an international

intervention program named "Right to Play Intervention" [43]. In this whole-school approach

students were engaged with different physical activities to help build their cognitive, social,

emotional, and physical skills. Right To Play’s Positive Child and Youth Development program

in Pakistan includes games and activities from the manual Red Ball Child Play that focuses on

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 5 / 23

4 areas of youth development, including physical, cognitive, social, and emotional domains.

However, this intervention did not produce convincing results and the authors suggested sev-

eral limitations and differences in the context of Pakistan in terms of climate, living conditions,

attitudes towards school, etc. Contrarily, in another study by Karmaliani et al. (2020) play-

based life-skills interventions delivered in public schools in Pakistan were able to elicit a signif-

icant reduction in peer violence [71].

Maryam and Ijaz (2019) also attempted to integrate some of the activities from the anti-bul-

lying program of Operation Respect from the USA in addition to behavioral and cognitive

techniques used in therapy with school children in Pakistan [72,73]. The program was imple-

mented over a 4-months timespan with the main focus on enhancing the pro-social skills,

emotional management and problem-solving aptitude of the victims. The participants showed

improvement in the skills taught to them, and an overall reduction was seen in the incidents of

bullying.

Hakim and Shah (2017) investigated strategies used to control bullying in primary schools

of Haripur, Pakistan. They found that the majority of the teachers adopted the strategy of pro-

viding a safe physical environment by instructing about rules before engaging students in any

activity to control bullying and behavioral problems [74]. It should be noted that teachers’ job

satisfaction can also be achieved by creating a conducive working environment and fostering

strong relationships [75]. However, detailed information and steps for the creation of a condu-

cive environment were not specifically discussed or elaborated in the study of Hakim and Shah

(2017) [74]. Similarly, involving parents and students to stand against bullying was also

reported by teachers but content, methodology, and details of the intervention programs were

not provided or clarified. It is concluded that while there are general rules of understanding on

how to handle bullying issues, expertise in this field is still insufficient.

This review of the limited number of interventions in Pakistan has shown that there is a

need for intervention of bullying and cyberbullying. Moreover, most of the interventions

adapted/adopted and applied were only focusing on one aspect of training like engaging with

physical activities [43,71], creating safe physical environment [74], enhancing pro-social skills

or emotion regulation of the victims [72]. Naveed et al. (2020) have further emphasized the

need to comprehend the underlying patterns of behavioral difficulties in order to devise effec-

tive pragmatic anti-bullying initiatives, school-based mental health services and psychosocial

counseling procedures [34]. Using a literature review, which focuses on Pakistan’s particular

context, the authors of the current study conducted a baseline survey to get a snapshot of what

teachers believe about bullying incidents and what interventions they expect to be able to use to

identify, combat, and stand up to bullying. Educators have a broader role to play than just in

the classroom; they can contribute to the overall planning and implementation of schools’ poli-

cies and plans [76]. Teachers are the primary agents that can influence the entire school envi-

ronment by introducing measures against bullying perpetration and victimization [77]. A

constant presence of teachers in classrooms throughout the academic year also allows students

to seek help whenever they experience or witness bullying or victimization. When designing a

teacher-led intervention, it is essential to obtain information about bullying in educational insti-

tutions from teachers and to ask their opinions about the intervention design they will use to

address bullying. With this goal in mind, this study was designed to obtain the necessary infor-

mation from teachers before designing and implementing a teacher-led intervention program.

Methods

The present study used a quantitative cross-sectional survey design to determine the prevalence

of different forms of bullying in educational institutions of Pakistan. Many of the referenced

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 6 / 23

researchers noted that the prevalence of bullying and its subtypes in educational institutions in

Pakistan is understudied [6,34,35,49,50]. The purpose of this study was to fill this gap by

expanding the knowledge about bullying and its categories in Pakistani educational institutions.

Ethical statement

The researchers followed basic ethical principles and the APA’s ethical code. Participants pro-

vided informed consent through an online forum which can be considered written consent

since, after reading details about the purpose of the study, anonymity, free participation,

planned use of data, and the right to end participation without negative consequences, they

explicitly agreed to these study conditions by clicking the "Agree" button at the beginning of

the online survey. In this way, informed consent was assured according to the ethical guide-

lines and federal legislation. Participants were adults and the questionnaire did not relate to

their own victimization experiences thus the probability of re-victimization was low. Ethical

review and approval were not required for the study on human participants in accordance

with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The entire study and questionnaire

were reviewed by the second author’s research team consisting of educational psychologists

and educationalists and two educators from a private university in the Metropolis City of Paki-

stan who are well acquainted with the educational system of Pakistan. The team of reviewers

found no potential conflict of interest or harm to participants, nor any activities that went

beyond the ethical code of conduct.

Instruments

The study variables were assessed using a questionnaire in which teachers reported the preva-

lence of bullying among students as they perceived it.

Demographics. Participants’ demographic information was used to determine their level

of teaching (e.g. primary, secondary), type of institution (e.g. public, private) and place of insti-

tution (urban, rural).

In order to assess cyberbullying from the teachers’ perspectives, an adapted version of the

Berlin Cyberbullying-Cybervictimization Questionnaire (BCyQ) by Schultze-Krumbholz and

Scheithauer (2011) was used [78]. Teachers were asked 17 statements on a 5-point Likert scale

(1 = never to 5 = frequently) to identify their perceptions of cyberbullying incidents among

students (Example statements:“Bad things were told/written about student on the Internet or

by mobile phone to destroy his/her friendships or reputation.”,“Student received messages on the

Internet or by mobile phone in which he/she was verbally abused or insulted.”).

To assess social bullying among students from the teachers’ perspective researchers adapted

and contextualized 10 items developed by Doğruer (2015) [79]. A five-point Likert scale was

used (1 = never to 5 = frequently). (Example statements:“Some student(s) prevent other stu-

dents from being friends with people they don’t like.”,“Some student(s) tell lies and stories about

others students to make them look bad.”).

Verbal bullying among students was measured using adapted and contextualized items

from various studies [79–81]. Eight items with a five-point Likert scale were used (1 = never to

5 = frequently). (Example statements:“Some student(s) swears at others.”,Some student(s) has

insulted or said nasty words to others.”,“Some student(s) threatens to physically hurt someone.”).

Nine items were adapted and contextualized from various studies [80–82] to measure physi-

cal bullying among students on a five-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = frequently). (Example

statements:“Some student(s) has thrown things at another student or hit others with an object

for physical abuse.”,“Some student(s) has tripped (causing someone to stumble or fall) another

student on purpose.”).

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 7 / 23

Teachers’ opinions about new antibullying interventions were also measured with six items

to better understand what educators expect from new interventions. Identifying the character-

istics of an intervention that teachers expect to help in controlling bullying in their schools was

the primary goal. Each item was based on a single question (Refer to Table 6).

The questionnaire was reviewed by the research team of the second author consisting of

educational psychologists and educational scientists and two educators from a private univer-

sity in the Metropolis City of Pakistan who are well acquainted with Pakistan’s educational

system. Several items were revised by the German and Pakistani experts in order to avoid

ambiguous statements, to eliminate duplicate or compound questions, and to contextualize

and adjust statements for better understanding by Pakistani teachers.

Participants

Using Google forms, a questionnaire survey was conducted online. Over 1,000 forms were

sent to educators to invite them to participate in the study. The researchers followed basic ethi-

cal principles and the APA’s ethical code. Teachers were informed about the study’s purpose,

voluntariness of participation and were given the right to withdraw from the study. In total,

454 teachers from different parts of Pakistan responded to the questionnaire from November

2021 until January 2022. The demographics of the participants are summarized in Table 1.

Most of the responding teachers were from secondary-level education (41%), from urban

settings (80.2%), and associated with private educational institutions (59.3%). Also, teachers

were asked about the source of information concerning bullying incidents (see Table 4) and

the most common plattform for cyberbullying (see Table 5).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation in SPSS 27. Exploratory

and confirmatory factor analysis were computed using SPSS 27 and AMOS 22. To determine

if the sample data is drawn from a normally distributed population (within a certain toler-

ance), a normality test is usually performed. Several statistical tests require normally distrib-

uted sample populations, such as the student’s t-test and the one-way and two-way ANOVA.

Normality can have serious effects in small samples, but this impact effectively diminishes

when sample size reaches 30 according to Cohen et al. (2002) and 50 according to de

Winter et al. (2009) [83,84]. This means that the sampling distribution of the mean can be

Table 1. Demographics.

Demographic Variable No. of Participants Percentage

Level of Teaching Primary (1–5 Grades) 101 22.2

Secondary (6-10/ O-Levels) 186 41.0

Higher Secondary (A-Levels) 60 13.2

University 107 23.6

Institutional Location Urban 364 80.2

Sub Urban 27 5.9

Rural 63 13.9

Institutional Setting Public 129 28.4

Semi Private/Public 56 12.3

Private 269 59.3

Total 454 100.0

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t001

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 8 / 23

assumed to be normal if each sample contains a large number of observations (in the present

study n= 454).

Factor analysis

Pre-analyses indicated that the sample size is satisfactory as the KMO value is higher than 0.7

(.961) [85,86] and an exploratory factor analysis can be conducted as the Bartlett’s test is sig-

nificant (χ

(630) = 10533.685, p <.001) [87,88]. Results of the factor analysis and factor load-

ings are shown in Table 2. After the factor analysis some of the items were removed to satisfy

model fit criteria and reliability indexes. The final questionnaire was based on 36 questions

Table 2. Factor loadings and reliability statistics.

S. No Type of Bullying Estimates No. of Items Reliability Cronbach Alpha

1. Cyber .591 13 .931

2. Cyber .619

3. Cyber .719

4. Cyber .695

5. Cyber .728

6. Cyber .715

7. Cyber .768

8. Cyber .741

9. Cyber .713

10. Cyber .726

11. Cyber .778

12. Cyber .768

13. Cyber .731

1. Social .667 9 .898

2 Social .652

3 Social .706

4 Social .707

5 Social .677

6 Social .764

7 Social .739

8 Social .736

9 Social .726

1 Verbal .699 7 .900

2 Verbal .750

3 Verbal .759

4 Verbal .768

5 Verbal .746

6 Verbal .685

7 Verbal .785

1 Physical .738 7 .919

2 Physical .791

3 Physical .801

4 Physical .757

5 Physical .796

6 Physical .785

7 Physical .787

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t002

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 9 / 23

with 4 main factors (Cyberbullying- 13 items, Social Bullying- 9 items, Verbal Bullying-7

items, Physical Bullying-7 items) (Refer to Table 2).

For every construct, Cronbach’s is higher than 0.7, indicating that the subscales are reliable

[89] (Refer to Table 2). Construct validity is established through Average Variance Extracted

(AVE) which was 0.60 and can be considered as good [90]. Further indicators of model fit also

show that the instrument meets the model fit criteria (χ

/df = 2.650, CFI = .904, RMR = .066,

RMSEA = .054, AGFI = .815, IFI = .905, PCFI = .810, PNFI = .716).

Results

Prevalence of bullying in educational institutions

The results regarding the frequency of different types of bullying incidents are shown in

Table 3. The purpose of compiling this information is to determine how many teachers have

witnessed bullying incidents among students and shared their experiences. From the Table 4,

it appears that teachers have witnessed more social and verbal bullying incidents (mean values

are higher than 3) than physical and cyberbullying.

The first common source of information is “sharing between a teacher and a colleague” (see

Table 4). In addition, the majority of reported cases involved teachers themselves witnessing

incidents and documenting them in surveys. The third common source of information was

that the victim himself/herself reported it to the teacher. This shows that peer bystanders are

least likely to speak out about the incident as compared to victimized children.

Additionally, which cyber platform is most commonly used for cyberbullying was also col-

lected and is shown in Table 5. Participants were asked to respond to the question: In terms of

cyberbullying incidents which is the most common networking site students are using? The

information gathered indicates that Facebook is still the most commonly used network for

cyberbullying, followed by Instagram and TikTok.

Table 3. Prevalence of different bullying types as perceived by teachers.

Cyberbullying Verbal Bullying Physical Bullying Social Bullying

N 454 454 454 454

Mean 2.6415 3.1718 2.7942 3.3529

Standard Deviation .87115 .85354 .91081 .81194

Range 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t003

Table 4. Source from which teachers get information about bullying incidents.

Frequency Percent

Never Witnessed 6 1.3

Witnessed by Teacher 113 24.9

Reported by Victim 80 17.6

Reported by Peer Bystander 46 10.1

Heard from Colleagues 121 26.7

Anonymous information 52 11.5

Reported by Parent 32 7.0

Various Means 4 .9

Total 454 100.0

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t004

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 10 / 23

Association of bullying with level of teaching and educational setting

To understand the association between the level of teaching and different forms of bullying,

the Pearson correlation test was run (Refer to Table 6). There is a significant decrease in the

cases of physical bullying as the teaching level increases, which indicates that the physical form

of bullying is more prevalent in primary schools than at higher educational institutions. In

addition, cyberbullying is positively correlated with traditional forms of bullying, suggesting

that institutions where cyberbullying is prevalent also experience higher levels of physical, ver-

bal, and social bullying.

To examine the difference between educational institutional settings (independent variable)

regarding different forms of bullying (dependent variable), one-way ANOVA tests were con-

ducted (Refer to Tables 7and 8). Using one-way ANOVA, bullying incidents among students

were compared by locality of the educational institution (urban, sub-urban, and rural).

According to the analysis, there was a significant difference for social bullying (F (2,451) =

7.419, p = 0.001). However, no significant differences were found for physical, verbal, or cyber-

bullying. According to a post-hoc analysis using the Tukey method, there was a significant dif-

ference in the prevalence of social bullying in rural (M = 3.004, SD = 0.74615) and urban

institutions (M = 3.42, SD = 0.81050). From mean differences, we found that urban teachers

reported more cases of social bullying than their rural counterparts (see Table 8). In this study,

teachers from urban schools were more likely to respond (N = 364) compared to teachers from

rural schools (N = 63), leading to uneven group sizes. The discussion section outlines some

other possible explanations for these differences. Similarly, one-way ANOVA was also

Table 5. Cyberbullying forums.

Responses Frequency Percent

Valid No Idea 8 1.8

FaceBook 251 55.3

TikTok 55 12.1

Whatsapp 10 2.2

Instagram 69 15.2

Snapchat 14 3.1

YouTube 26 5.7

Twitter 11 2.4

Zoom 2 .4

All 6 1.3

Gaming Apps 2 .4

Total 454 100.0

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t005

Table 6. Correlations.

Level of Teaching Cyberbullying Verbal Bullying Physical Bullying Social Bullying

Level of Teaching 1 .052 -.016 -.113*.001

Cyberbullying 1 .633** .572** .628**

Verbal Bullying 1 .677** .795**

Physical Bullying 1 .565**

Social Bullying 1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t006

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 11 / 23

Related document tools

Support cleaner academic submissions

Plag helps compare academic text against other sources. Identific is useful for workflows where documents need stronger assurance. They can support a more careful review process.

plag.ai

conducted to examine differences between bullying incidents (dependent variable) in public,

private and semi-private institutions (independent variables). No significant difference was

observed.

Teachers’ opinions about new intervention

Teachers were also asked about various aspects of new interventions to control traditional bul-

lying and cyberbullying. Table 9 provides an overview of the items and participants’ responses.

Finally, recommendations and suggestions offer further insight into teachers’ opinions.

Discussion

In this research paper, the authors collected information about bullying incidents among stu-

dents observed and reported by teachers. It becomes evident that teachers have noticed more

social and verbal bullying incidents than physical bullying and cyberbullying. The opposite has

been found in other studies when data was collected from students in Pakistan, which showed

that traditional and cyberbullying was a frequent practice in Pakistan’s educational institutions

[34,35]. Investigations have shown that bullying and cyberbullying occur regularly in Paki-

stan’s educational institutions, which negatively affect the mental, emotional, and physical

Table 7. ANOVA. Dependent Variable: Form of Bullying.

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Cyberbullying Between Groups 1.013 2 .507 .667 .514

Within Groups 342.772 451 .760

Total 343.786 453

Verbal Bullying Between Groups 3.161 2 1.580 2.181 .114

Within Groups 326.867 451 .725

Total 330.028 453

Physical Bullying Between Groups .230 2 .115 .138 .871

Within Groups 375.564 451 .833

Total 375.794 453

Social Bullying Between Groups 9.512 2 4.756 7.419 .001

Within Groups 289.129 451 .641

Total 298.641 453

Independent Variable: Institutional Location (Urban, Rural, Sub Urban)

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t007

Table 8. Multiple comparisons.

Tukey HSD

Dependent Variable (I) Institutional Location (J) Institutional Location Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Social Bullying Urban Sub Urban .15223 .15970 .607 -.2233 .5278

Rural .41619*.10926 .000 .1593 .6731

Sub Urban Urban -.15223 .15970 .607 -.5278 .2233

Rural .26396 .18417 .325 -.1691 .6970

Rural Urban -.41619*.10926 .000 -.6731 -.1593

Sub Urban -.26396 .18417 .325 -.6970 .1691

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t008

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 12 / 23

health of Pakistan’s children and young adults [35,37,48]. Khawaja et al. (2015) found physi-

cal and verbal violence as a prevalent occurrence in major cities and provincial capitals’ institu-

tions of Pakistan [44]. However, the present data collected from teachers do not support the

claim that bullying is prevalent in schools in the form of cyber or physical afflictions. Teachers’

lack of interaction with students on social networking platforms where cyberbullying happens

can be a contributing factor for deviating reports of cyberbullying. In addition, teachers usually

aren’t members of groups on social networking sites where students engage in cyberbullying

and, since students maintain anonymity, teachers can’t report or respond to students engaging

in cyberbullying. Aside from that, the involvement in continuous online teaching platforms

has reduced the time available for teachers to interact with students for socializing purposes or

networking. Studies have shown that during the pandemic, online teaching-related technology

stress suppresses the urge among teachers to interact online for purposes other than those

related to education [91]. As a result of these contradictory statements, it can be concluded

that bullying and cyberbullying are prevalent in educational institutions, but teachers are infre-

quently exposed to those incidents or are unfamiliar with them, and need training to identify

Table 9. Teachers’ opinions about new intervention design.

Question Options Participants %

1. In order of your preference tick the most suitable mode of training intervention? Face to Face only 250 55.1

Online only 38 8.4

Blended 99 21.8

No Preference (All

options work)

67 14.8

2. Do you think that installing apps for bullying prevention can help you to learn better and utilize your free time

more effectively?

Strongly Disagree 34 7.5

Disagree 39 8.6

Neutral 134 29.5

Agree 141 31.1

Strongly Agree 106 23.3

3. Bullying and Cyberbullying are associated with some serious social issues such as sexual harassment, spreading

of unethical content, grooming, etc. Intervention would also be helpful for you to understand and stand against

this immoral, unethical, and antireligious content. Would it be acceptable to you to have a trainer of a different

gender than you and be able to openly discuss these issues?

Strongly Disagree 14 3.1

Disagree 30 6.6

Neutral 127 28

Agree 119 26.2

Strongly Agree 164 36.1

4. After training would it be feasible for you to train your students in segregated settings (boys and girls

separately)?

Strongly Disagree 17 3.7

Disagree 31 6.8

Neutral 92 20.3

Agree 135 29.7

Strongly Agree 179 39.4

5. In order to control unacceptable behavior, support from holy books, prophets’ lifestyles examples, and stories

from religious and cultural perspectives should also be part of the intervention

Strongly Disagree 12 2.6

Disagree 25 5.5

Neutral 78 17.2

Agree 89 19.6

Strongly Agree 250 55.1

6. Discussion with other ethnicities, nationalities, and cultural exchange on social networking platforms (skype,

zoom, or google meet) would be effective in reducing bullying/cyberbullying.

Strongly Disagree 22 4.8

Disagree 32 7

Neutral 99 21.8

Agree 132 29.1

Strongly Agree 169 37.2

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864.t009

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 13 / 23

victimization and perpetrator behavior to intervene effectively and control unacceptable

behavior.

Research has revealed that physical bullying tends to decrease as one goes up the educa-

tional ladder. This means physical bullying is more prevalent in primary schools than in higher

education institutions. Zych et al. (2020) found that physical bullying decreases throughout

adolescence, which is consistent with these results [92]. Contrary to Rafi et al. (2019), no signif-

icant difference was found between cyberbullying incidents and age in the present study [38].

Our results further demonstrate that cyberbullying is positively correlated with verbal, physical

and social forms of bullying in institutions with a higher prevalence of cyberbullying, these

forms of bullying are occurring more commonly. These results are in line with the explanation

given by Kowalski et al. (2014) who stated that cyberbullying usually occurs in conjunction

with traditional bullying, and institutions where cyberbullying is common also have a higher

incidence of traditional bullying incidents [24].

Bjereld (2018) argued that victims often fear being seen as victims by others and thus

attempt to conceal their victimization [93]. Victims are usually unenthusiastic to share

their suffering due to multiple reasons such as distrust of adults and concern about being

blamed [93]. On the contrary, the present teacher data revealed that bystanders are the

least likely to report an incident. Bystanders are often the first to witness an incident and

report it to a teacher, which is why in most interventions they are a central target of train-

ing [93]. However, the number of bystanders reporting an incident to a teacher or inter-

vening directly appears to be lowest in Pakistan. Gordon (2019) reported numerous

reasons why bystanders do not intervene or communicate incidents to adults [94]: fear of

being victimized for reporting or intervening, a lack of knowledge of what to do in such a

situation, mistrust of adults, having been taught to stay away from this kind of situations,

and moral disengagement beliefs. There is still a need to investigate the reasons for the

silence of bystanders in Pakistan. Additionally, the bystanders’ role in the bullying chain

should be emphasized in upcoming intervention designs for Pakistan’s educational

institutions.

Many of the social networking sites have been used as a venue for cyberbullying activities

such as Instagram [95], twitter [96], Facebook [97], TikTok [98], WhatsApp [99], Snapchat

[100], YouTube [101] Zoom [102], and online games [103]. However, our data from teachers

in Pakistan showed that Facebook continues to be the most frequently used social network-

ing platform where cyberbullying incidents are observed. There is a possibility that other

platforms that are gaining more popularity among young people are being misused for

cyberbullying. Teachers, however, still preferably use Facebook and therefore haven’t

noticed such incidents on other social networks. In order to find out the popularity of

emerging social networks among youths, data should also be collected from them to reveal

the true picture of social networking. Moreover, despite efforts being made by social net-

working sites to control bullying, there is still a considerable prevalence of bullying that indi-

cates that users need training to protect themselves and others from cyber harms of online

networking.

As Tayyaba (2012) demonstrates, there are differences between rural and urban educational

institutions that are related to differences in student performance [104]. Different parenting

styles, social characteristics and school climate may be responsible for this. As a result, the

opinions and experiences of teachers may also differ regarding bullying issues. However, this

area of research is still understudied and requires more comprehensive and detailed investiga-

tions. Moreover, a baseline assessment should always be conducted so that differences between

rural and urban settings can be taken into account and bullying interventions can be tailored

to the needs of individual schools.

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 14 / 23

Recommendations and suggestions

The previous sections already discussed that there are limited interventions designed to con-

trol traditional bullying in schools and hardly any intervention for controlling cyberbullying

successfully implemented in Pakistan. It is now a major concern whether adopting Western

school-based bullying control interventions would be promising in South Asia. Moreover, it is

a question whether overburdened teachers will be able to participate and implement the pro-

gram successfully. Based on the review of the literature and the baseline survey from teachers

there are a few suggestions made by the authors for addressing this problem in Pakistan’s edu-

cational institutions.

1. McFarlane et al. (2017) reported that Pakistan is a particularly challenging country for eval-

uating international interventions because of multiple variations in terms of climate and

school cultures [43]. Given the specific societal, political, economic, and climatic challenges

that teachers and students encounter in Pakistan [43], school-based interventions cannot

produce successful results unless combined with some other measures. It is possible to

introduce web-based interventions through teachers’ professional development. Web-

based interventions are also considered a cost-effective strategy, which can maintain ano-

nymity/privacy and can address a large number of people [105]. These reports were cross-

examined by asking about the teachers’ preferred mode of training (blended, online or

face-to-face training). A surprising 55.1% of the participants wanted to meet instructors in

person and preferred face-to-face training sessions. Due to the difficulties Pakistani teachers

faced during the transition to online learning and teaching, this phase has left a negative

impression on teachers about online instruction. The failure of online learning to produce

effective results has been attributed to multiple reasons [106–108]. The challenges of digital

transformation of the educational system include poor internet signals/strength, high inter-

net connectivity costs, electricity load shedding, lack of training and readiness of remote

learners, difficulty in group activities, unreliable assessment methods and results, and insuf-

ficient interaction among participants and instructors [106,108]. Some of the students

reported health concerns from continuous online learning such as eye sight and ear pain

issues [50]. Beside the lack of immediate feedback, the practical component of learning is

also cited as a major problem [107]. In light of this observation, the authors suggest that

teachers receive on-site training for anti-bullying intervention.

2. Cyberbullying is usually accompanied by traditional bullying [24] and it is recommended

that interventions designed should be pertinent to managing both types of bullying, other-

wise there are studies where controlling one form of bullying results in involvement of the

perpetrators in another type of bullying [68,69]. The statistical results of the current study

have also revealed that students at institutions where cyberbullying occurs more frequently

are also at greater risk of traditional bullying such as physical, verbal, and social forms.

From these interpretations, it is concluded that new intervention programs should not only

address traditional bullying but should also target cyberbullying. In addition, literature has

shown both cyberbullying and traditional bullying are prevalent in Pakistan, but the teach-

ers’ data explained that the prevalence of cyberbullying or physical assault is less common

than other two forms of bullying. These contradictory statements highlight the prevalence

of bullying and cyberbullying in educational institutions, but educators are rarely exposed

to these incidents or are unfamiliar with them. Therefore, educators need training in detect-

ing victimization and perpetrator behaviors. A new intervention should include compo-

nents that will assist teachers in identifying victimization and perpetration, allowing them

to intervene immediately and control the situation.

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 15 / 23

3. The use of mobile apps and Virtual realities (VR) as a combating strategy is also suggested

by many researchers. Apps such as Shazam or Unmute Daniel and iZ Hero are some of the

technology-based interventions designed to create awareness and prevent bullying [109,

110]. The introduction of such programs can be effective in controlling behavioural prob-

lems with limited financial resources. Despite technological challenges, 54% of teachers in

our study agreed that the use of apps, in combination with face-to-face sessions, can result

in more effective training. Out of 454 respondents, 134 supported a neutral position. As a

result, researchers suggest creating an app that supports intervention training, where partic-

ipants can continue to learn at their own pace without being restricted by geography.

4. Maddison (2013) has clearly indicated that the social structure of South Asia is more com-

plex than elsewhere [111]. Moreover, talking about cyber-associated risky behaviours like

stalking and sexting is challenging due to cultural, moral, and religious beliefs in the Paki-

stani community [112]. Similarly, many families are against co-education and prefer to

send their children to single-sex institutions [113]. Keeping the religious and cultural

aspects in mind, teachers were also surveyed regarding their acceptance of segregated set-

tings (men and women separated) for training sessions. Unexpectedly, 283 out of 464 par-

ticipants are comfortable if they are professionally trained in a group setting with tutors of a

different gender as them. It shows that despite religious and cultural beliefs, teachers are

ready to study with male or female counterparts. On the other hand, when their perceptions

on transferring knowledge to students after training was assessed, almost two thirds of the

participants thought segregated classes would provide opportunities for both girls and boys

to speak more openly about issues and concerns (if any) with instructors and fellow stu-

dents. The implementation of separate programs for men and women is also recommended

to ensure open dialogue and discussion without hurting any community’s religious or tradi-

tional beliefs.

5. Religious education is widely used in Pakistan for character building and moral engage-

ment. Previous studies have established that religious education contributes to moral devel-

opment, like Perrin (2000), who found a positive association between honesty and

religiosity [114]. Nucci (1989) stated, on the contrary, that children should be taught univer-

sal values devoid of ethnic and geographical differences in order to live a meaningful life

[115]. He argued that when children are controlled by religious doctrines, they do not adopt

these values, rather they rebel and refuse. In order to make an informed recommendation,

the present study also asked teachers about their opinion on taking support from holy

books, prophets’ behavioral examples, and stories from religious and cultural perspectives

to improve children’s behavior. According to the descriptive results, three-fourths of partici-

pants agreed that religious support was necessary for the new intervention to be effective.

6. Khawaja et al. (2015) suggested that recreational and cultural enrichment programs can be

beneficial to pupils, because they are exposed beyond the boundaries of their own commu-

nity which may create tolerance and the motivation needed to improve their circumstances

and behaviors [44]. Our descriptive findings revealed that about 66% of the teachers

believed that forums in which students interact with other cultures and share their experi-

ences would help them to develop tolerance towards others, acceptance of different opin-

ions, and understanding of other cultures. As such, it is recommended that any future

interventions emphasize some of the components needed to develop better intercultural

perspectives and focus on cultural intelligence.

7. Peer training involves students either of the same age or of different ages who learn

from each other in a structured manner. This type of training allows students to put their

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 16 / 23

knowledge and skills to use, and creates a platform for both the trainer and trainee to boost

their self-confidence. The tutor gains confidence in their ability to assist someone, while

the trainee receives encouragement from their peers, strengthening their sense of self-com-

petence [116]. It is recommended that along with teachers’ professional development,

components for peer training should also be introduced to control bullying incidents in

educational settings.

Practical implications

This research study served as a baseline assessment conducted prior to the development of a

teacher-led anti-bullying training program and has several practical implications. An analysis

of the survey provided a comprehensive understanding of bullying in Pakistani schools and

educational institutions. This information has been used to determine the extent of the prob-

lem and the need for an anti-bullying training program. The study also revealed what types of

bullying are most common and what teachers expect from new interventions. This informa-

tion can then be used by future researchers to tailor anti-bullying training programs to the spe-

cific needs of students.

Conclusions

This study serves as the basis for an anti-bullying intervention developed for a teacher training

course. It is novel in that it does not rely on student self-reports of bullying incidences and fre-

quencies as most of the previous studies in Pakistan have done and it includes teacher percep-

tions and experiences. The results show some clear differences to the research conducted

previously in Pakistan.

A review of literature has already demonstrated that bullying and cyberbullying are undeni-

ably prevalent in Pakistan’s educational system and society and there is a dire need to develop

and integrate bullying interventions. The current study also confirmed that verbal and social

forms of bullying are widespread from the teachers’ point of view. This study has provided a

new perspective and general recommendations for planning and implementing new, socially

contextualized anti-bullying interventions for teachers in Pakistan. According to the baseline

survey, the intervention should not only explain how to handle and control bullying, but it

should also provide training for teachers to help them identify victimization and perpetrator

behavior, both in traditional schools and online. Moreover, it is equally imperative that inter-

vention should be focused on both traditional and cyber forms of bullying, as both of these are

prevalent in educational institutions. In Pakistan, bystanders are least likely to intervene or

report bullying to teachers, though they are considered the strongest link in the bullying chain.

It is also helpful to train peers or bystanders to intervene as soon as a bullying incident is

observed.

The study findings have assisted the authors in developing a low-cost antibullying program

led by teachers. Teachers will receive professional development in addressing bullying in institu-

tions to implement the intervention design based on the outcomes of this study. An important

concern is whether a teacher-led intervention can empower students to reduce their negative

behavior in the context of poverty and social norms supportive of violence. To ensure the effec-

tiveness of the new intervention design, further research is recommended for the future.

Limitations and directions for future research

Despite its strengths, the study also has certain limitations. Increasing the sample size and

including additional educational stakeholders such as administrators, counselors, and

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 17 / 23

educational institution staff could provide a better insight into the issues. In addition, trans-

lated versions of the instruments are recommended, especially for teachers from rural areas

where English is not commonly used for academic or communication purposes. A major limi-

tation is the cross-sectional design of the study, which generally does not accurately capture

actual measurement invariance scores over time. It is therefore suggested that similar studies

be repeated with a longitudinal design, changing the sample size and including data from

more institutions in different regions of Pakistan.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis: Sohni Siddiqui.

Investigation: Sohni Siddiqui.

Methodology: Sohni Siddiqui.

Project administration: Anja Schultze-Krumbholz.

Supervision: Anja Schultze-Krumbholz.

Writing – original draft: Sohni Siddiqui.

Writing – review & editing: Anja Schultze-Krumbholz.

References

1. Siddiqui S, Saleem MF, Kazmi AB. Drifts of parenting styles and rage among juveniles: A research

study of Pakistani families residing in Pakistan and abroad. The Family Journal.

2018:1066480718811325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718811325

2. Thomas HJ, Connor JP, Scott JG. Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of defi-

nition and measurement in adolescents–A review. Educational Psychology Review. 2015; 27(1):135–

152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9261-7

3. Burger C, Strohmeier D, Spro

¨ber N, Bauman S, Rigby K. How teachers respond to school bullying: An

examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multi-

ple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2015; 51:191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.

2015.07.004

4. Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor, AM, Hamburger ME, Lumpkin CD. Bullying surveillance among youths:

Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. 2014.

5. NCAB. National Center Against Bullying. 2021. https://www.ncab.org.au/bullying-advice/bullying-for-

parents/types-of-bullying/

6. Siddiqui S, Kazmi AB, Siddiqui UN. Internet Addiction as a precursor for cyber and displaced aggres-

sion: A survey study on Pakistani youth. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions. 2021; 8(1):73–

80. https://doi.org/10.5152/ADDICTA.2021.20099

7. Grigg DW. Cyber-aggression: Definition and concept of cyberbullying. Journal of Psychologists and

Counsellors in Schools. 2010; 20(2):143–56. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.20.2.143

8. Englander E, Donnerstein E, Kowalski R, Lin CA, Parti K. Defining cyberbullying. Pediatrics. 2017; 140

(Supplement_2):S148–51. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758U PMID: 29093051

9. Cook S. Cyberbullying facts and statistics for 2018–2021. 2021. https://www.comparitech.com/

internet-providers/cyberbullying-statistics/

10. Statista Research Department. Global number of bullying and harassment-Related content taken

action on by Facebook from 3rd quarter 2018 to 2nd quarter 2021(in millions). 2021. https://www.

statista.com/statistics/1013569/facebook-bullying-and-harassment-content-removal-quarter/

11. Delgado P. Cyberbullying On the Rise During the Pandemic. 2020. https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-

news/cyberbullying-on-the-rise

12. Micklea, Z. Increase in Cyberbullying During COVID-19. 2021. https://www.mibluesperspectives.com/

2020/10/12/increase-in-cyberbullying-during-covid-19/

13. Malti T, Rubin KH. Aggression in childhood and adolescence: Definition, history, and theory. In: Tina

M, Kenneth HR, editors. Handbook of child and adolescent aggression. The Guilford Press; 2018. pp.

3–19.

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 18 / 23

14. Allen JJ, Anderson CA. Aggression and violence: Definitions and distinctions. The Wiley handbook of

violence and aggression, 2017: 1–14.

15. Gay P. Sigmund Freud. Time. 1999; 153(12):66–9.

16. Pinker S. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Penguin Books; 2012.

17. McClelland DC. Human motivation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1987.

18. Dehue F. Cyberbullying research: New perspectives and alternative methodologies. Introduction to

the special issue. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2013; 23(1):1–6. https://doi.org/

10.1002/casp.2139

19. Slonje R, Smith PK, Frise

´n A. The nature of cyberbullying, and strategies for prevention. Computers in

Human Behavior. 2013; 29(1):26–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.024

20. Pastore N. The role of arbitrariness in the frustration-aggression hypothesis. The Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology. 1952; 47(3):728–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060884 PMID: 12980780

21. Agnew R. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology. 1992; 30

(1):47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x

22. Burkhart K, Keder RD. Bullying: the role of the clinician in prevention and intervention. In: Michele K.

Clinician’s Toolkit for Children’s Behavioral Health: Academic Press; 2020. pp. 143–173.

23. Guo S. A meta-analysis of the predictors of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. Psychology in

the Schools. 2016; 53(4):432–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21914

24. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review

and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin. 2014; 140(4):1073–

1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618 PMID: 24512111

25. Bandura A, Evans RI, Huberman B. Albert Bandura; 1988.

26. Garandeau CF, Cillessen AH. From indirect aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on

bullying and peer group manipulation. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2006; 11(6):612–625. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.08.005

27. Salmivalli C. Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and violent behavior. 2010; 15(2):

112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

28. Dodge KA, Crick NR. Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1990; 16(1):8–22.

29. Tedeschi JT, Felson RB. Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. American Psychological Associ-

ation; 1994. https://doi.org/10.1037/10160-000

30. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology. 2002; 53(1):27–51.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 PMID: 11752478

31. Ferrer-Cascales R, Albaladejo-Bla

´zquez N, Sa

´nchez-SanSegundo M, Portilla-Tamarit I, Lordan O,

Ruiz-Robledillo N. Effectiveness of the TEI program for bullying and cyberbullying reduction and

school climate improvement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

2019; 16(4):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040580 PMID: 30781543

32. Waasdorp TE, Pas ET, Zablotsky B, Bradshaw CP. Ten-year trends in bullying and related attitudes

among 4th-to 12th-graders. Pediatrics. 2017; 139(6): e20162615. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-

2615 PMID: 28562260

33. Moore SE, Norman RE, Suetani S, Thomas HJ, Sly PD, Scott JG. Consequences of bullying victimiza-

tion in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychia-

try. 2017; 7(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 PMID: 28401049

34. Naveed S, Waqas A, Shah Z, Ahmad W, Wasim M, Rasheed J, et al. Trends in bullying and emotional

and behavioral difficulties among Pakistani schoolchildren: A cross-sectional survey of seven cities.

Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2020; 10:976. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00976 PMID: 32009998

35. Saleem S, Khan NF, Zafar S. Prevalence of cyberbullying victimization among Pakistani Youth. Tech-

nology in Society. 2021; 65:101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101577

36. Musharraf S, Anis-ul-Haque M. Cyberbullying in different participant roles: Exploring differences in

psychopathology and well-being in university students. Pakistan Journal of Medical Research. 2018;

57(1):33–39

37. Mirza M, Azmat S, Malik S. A comparative study of cyber bullying among online and conventional stu-

dents of higher education institutions in Pakistan. Journal of Educational Sciences & Research. 2020;

7(2):87–100.

38. Rafi MS. Cyberbullying in Pakistan: Positioning the aggressor, victim, and bystander. Pakistan Journal

of Psychological Research. 2019; 34(3):601–620. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3827661

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 19 / 23

39. Antoniadou N, Kokkinos CM, Markos A. Possible common correlates between bullying and cyber-bul-

lying among adolescents. Psicologı

´a Educativa. 2016; 22(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.

2016.01.003

40. Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A. Cyberbullying in youth: A pattern of disruptive behaviour. Psi-

cologı

´a Educativa. 2016; 22(1):19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2016.02.001

41. Magsi H, Agha N, Magsi I. Understanding cyber bullying in Pakistani context: Causes and effects on

young female university students in Sindh province. New Horizons (1992–4399). 2017; 11(1):103–

110.

42. Naveed S, Waqas A, Aedma KK, Afzaal T, Majeed MH. Association of bullying experiences with

depressive symptoms and psychosocial functioning among school going children and adolescents.

BMC Research Notes. 2019; 12(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4236-x PMID: 30940177

43. McFarlane J, Karmaliani R, Khuwaja HM, Gulzar S, Somani R, Ali TS, et al. Preventing peer violence

against children: Methods and baseline data of a cluster randomized controlled trial in Pakistan. Global

Health: Science and Practice. 2017; 5(1):115–37. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-16-00215 PMID:

28351880

44. Khawaja S, Khoja A, Motwani K. Abuse among school going adolescents in three major cities of Paki-

stan: Is it associated with school performances and mood disorders?. JPMA. The Journal of the Paki-

stan Medical Association. 2015; 65(2):142. PMID: 25842547

45. Inamullah HM, Irshadullah M, Shah J. An investigation to the causes and effects of bullying in second-

ary schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Sindh University Journal of Education-SUJE. 2016; 45

(1).67–86.

46. Asif A. Relationship between Bullying and Behavior Problems (Anxiety, Depression, Stress) among

Adolescence: Impact on Academic Performance. Edmond: MedCrave Group LLC. 2016.

47. Murshid NS. Bullying victimization and mental health outcomes of adolescents in Myanmar, Pakistan,

and Sri Lanka. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017; 76:163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

childyouth.2017.03.003

48. Musharraf S, Anis-ul-Haque M. Impact of cyber aggression and cyber victimization on mental health

and well-being of Pakistani young adults: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Aggression, Mal-

treatment & Trauma. 2018; 27(9):942–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1422838

49. Somani R, Corboz J, Karmaliani R, Chirwa ED, McFarlane J, Khuwaja HM, et al. Peer victimization

and experiences of violence at school and at home among school age children with disabilities in Paki-

stan and Afghanistan. Global Health Action. 2021; 14(1):1857084. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.

2020.1857084 PMID: 33357165

50. Ullah A, Ashraf M, Ashraf S, Ahmed S. Challenges of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic

encountered by students in Pakistan. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. 2021; 3

(1):36–44. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2021167264

51. Dollard J, Miller NE, Doob LW, Mowrer OH, Sears RR. Frustration and aggression. 1939.

52. Denson TF, Pedersen WC, Miller N. The displaced aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology. 2006; 90(6):1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.1032 PMID:

16784350

53. Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain

theory. Youth & Society. 2011; 43(2):727–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10366951

54. Husain I. Pakistan: The economy of an elitist state. OUP Catalogue:2000.

55. Arslan M, Zaman R. Unemployment and its determinants: A study of Pakistan economy (1999–2010).

Journal of Economics and Sustainable development. 2014; 5(13):20–4.

56. Rehman A, Jingdong L, Hussain I. The province-wise literacy rate in Pakistan and its impact on the

economy. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2015; 1(3):140–144. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.001

57. Singh S, Tanvir Hassan SM, Hassan M, Bharti N. Urbanisation and water insecurity in the Hindu Kush

Himalaya: Insights from Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. Water Policy. 2020; 22(S1):9–32.

https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.215

58. Khan MA, Akhtar Ali Shah S. Food insecurity in Pakistan: Causes and policy response. Journal of Agri-

cultural and Environmental Ethics. 2011; 24(5):493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9274-2

59. Asad N, Karmaliani R, McFarlane J, Bhamani SS, Somani Y, Chirwa E, et al. The intersection of ado-

lescent depression and peer violence: Baseline results from a randomized controlled trial of 1752

youth in Pakistan. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2017; 22(4):232–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/

camh.12249 PMID: 32680419

60. Karmaliani R, Mcfarlane J, Somani R, Khuwaja HM, Bhamani SS, Ali TS, et al. Peer violence perpetra-

tion and victimization: Prevalence, associated factors and pathways among 1752 sixth grade boys and

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 20 / 23

girls in schools in Pakistan. PloS One. 2017; 12(8):e0180833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.

0180833 PMID: 28817565

61. Murshid NS. Poor hygiene and bullying victimization in Pakistan. Children and Youth Services Review.

2018; 88:197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.016

62. Malik A, Abdullah NA. Level of aggression among college teachers and students in Pakistan: An analy-

sis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences. 2017; 37(2):343–53.

63. Authority PT. Telecom Indicators. 2019. Avaiable from: https://www.pta.gov.pk/en/telecom-indicators/

64. Stats IL. Internet Users by Country (2016). 2019. https://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-

country/

65. Chaudhari B, Menon P, Saldanha D, Tewari A, Bhattacharya L. Internet addiction and its determinants

among medical students. Industrial Psychiatry Journal. 2015; 24(2):158–162. https://doi.org/10.4103/

0972-6748.181729 PMID: 27212820

66. Pakwired. TECHNOLOGY10% of Pakistanis Connected to the Internet; 50% of Those are on Mobiles.

2019. https://pakwired.com/internet-users-in-pakistan/

67. Livingstone S, Haddon L, Go

¨rzig A, O

´lafsson K. Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of

European children: full findings and policy implications from the EU Kids Online survey of 9–16 year

olds and their parents in 25 countries. EU Kids Online, Deliverable D4. EU Kids Online Network, Lon-

don, UK; 2011.

68. Campbell M, Spears B, Slee P, Butler D, Kift S. Victims’ perceptions of traditional and cyberbullying,

and the psychosocial correlates of their victimisation. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. 2012; 17

(3–4):389–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704316

69. Christian Elledge L, Williford A, Boulton AJ, DePaolis KJ, Little TD, Salmivalli C. Individual and contex-

tual predictors of cyberbullying: The influence of children’s provictim attitudes and teachers’ ability to

intervene. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2013; 42(5):698–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-

013-9920-x PMID: 23371005

70. Shakeel Q. Cybercrime reports hit a record high in 2018: FIA. 2018. https://www.dawn.com/news/

1440854

71. Karmaliani R, McFarlane J, Khuwaja HM, Somani Y, Bhamani SS, Saeed Ali T, et al. Right To Play’s

intervention to reduce peer violence among children in public schools in Pakistan: A cluster-random-

ized controlled trial. Global Health Action. 2020; 13(1):1836604. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.

2020.1836604 PMID: 33138740

72. Maryam U, Ijaz, T. Efficacy of a school based intervention plan for victims of bullying. e—Academia.

2019;8 (Special Issue GraCe): 206–216.

73. Roerden LP, Yarrow P, Lazar F. Don’t laugh at me: Creating a ridicule-free classroom. New York, NY:

Operation Respect. Inc. and Educators for Social Responsibility. 2000.

74. Hakim F, Shah SA. Investigation of bullying controlling strategies by primary school teachers at district

Haripur. Peshawar Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (PJPBS). 2017; 3(2):165–74.

https://doi.org/10.32879/pjpbs.2017.3.2.165-174

75. Jaffar A, Ming X, Anwer M, Ali FA, Ali N. The effects of work pleasure on faculty members job satisfac-

tion in ideal environment: A case study of Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan. Journal for

Studies in Management and Planning, 2015; 1(2): 278–292.

76. Shah SS, Ali N, Anwer M, Jaffar A. Nurturing sustainable teachers’ leadership culture: Possibilities,

challenges, stakeholders’ behavior analysis in the context of Pakistan. International Journal of

Research (IJR), 2015; 2(3): 593–600.

77. Strohmeier D, Hoffmann C, Schiller EM, Stefanek E, Spiel C. ViSC social competence program. New

Directions for Youth Development. 2012; 2012(133):71–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20008 PMID:

22504792

78. Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H. The Berlin Cyberbullying-Cybervictimization Questionnaire

(BCyQ). Unpublished questionnaire. Berlin, Germany: Freie Universita

¨t Berlin.[Google Scholar]. 2011.

79. Doğruer N. Bullying Scale Development for Higher Education Students: North Cyprus Case (Doctoral

dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu Akdeniz U

¨niversitesi (DAU

¨)). 2015.

80. Xiu Y, Wang Q, Wang T. Exploring motives and types of bullying in young adults: Cases from China.

Asian Education Studies. 2021; 6(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.20849/aes.v6i1.894

81. Gonza

´lez-Cabrera J, Sa

´nchez-A

´lvarez N, Calvete E, Leo

´n-Mejı

´a A, Orue I, Machimbarrena JM. Psy-

chometric properties of the triangulated version of the European Bullying Intervention Project Ques-

tionnaire: Prevalence across seven roles. Psychology in the Schools. 2020; 57(1):78–90. https://doi.

org/10.1002/pits.22320

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 21 / 23

82. Demaray MK, Summers KH, Jenkins LN, Becker LD. Bullying Participant Behaviors Questionnaire

(BPBQ): Establishing a reliable and valid measure. Journal of School Violence. 2016; 15(2):158–88.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.964801

83. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K. Research Methods in Education ( 5

ed.). London and New York:

Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group; 2002.

84. de Winter JC, Dodou DI, Wieringa PA. Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate

Behavioral Research. 2009; 44(2):147–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206 PMID:

26754265

85. Kaiser HF, Rice J. Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1974; 34(1):111–

117. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115

86. Leech NL, Barrett K, Morgan G. SPSS for intermediate statistics; use and interpretation lawrence erl-

baum assocıates. New Jersey London, England: Publishers Mahwah. 2005.

87. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis 6th ed. Uppersad-

dle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.

88. Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psy-

chology. 1950; 3(2): 77–85

89. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951; 16(3):297–

334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

90. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis,

7th ed.; Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. 2010:600–38.

91. Siddiqui S, Arif I, Hinduja P. Technostress: A catalyst to leave the teaching profession-A survey

designed to measure technostress among teachers in Pakistan during COVID-19 pandemic. E-Learn-

ing and Digital Media. 2022:20427530221107506. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530221107506

92. Zych I, Ttofi MM, Llorent VJ, Farrington DP, Ribeaud D, Eisner MP. A longitudinal study on stability

and transitions among bullying roles. Child Development. 2020; 91(2):527–545. https://doi.org/10.

1111/cdev.13195 PMID: 30566232

93. Bjereld Y. The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from

the victim’s point of view. Journal of Health Psychology. 2018; 23(8):1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.

1177/1359105316644973 PMID: 27153857

94. Gordon S. Reasons Why Bstanders Do Not Speak Up. 2019. https://www.verywellfamily.com/

reasons-why-bystanders-remain-silent-460741

95. Hosseinmardi H, Rafiq RI, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S. Prediction of cyberbullying incidents in a media-

based social network. In2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks

Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) 2016 Aug 18 (pp. 186–192). IEEE.

96. Alotaibi M, Alotaibi B, Razaque A. A multichannel deep learning framework for cyberbullying detection

on social media. Electronics. 2021; 10(21):2664. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10212664

97. Silva YN, Rich C, Chon J, Tsosie LM. BullyBlocker: An app to identify cyberbullying in Facebook. In

2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASO-

NAM) 2016 Aug 18 (pp. 1401–1405). IEEE.

98. Vaterlaus JM, Winter M. TikTok: An exploratory study of young adults’ uses and gratifications. The

Social Science Journal. 2021:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2021.1969882

99. Aizenkot D, Kashy-Rosenbaum G. Cyberbullying victimization in WhatsApp classmate groups among

Israeli elementary, middle, and high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021; 36(15–

16): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519842860 PMID: 31006326

100. Byrne E, Vessey JA, Pfeifer L. Cyberbullying and social media: Information and interventions for

school nurses working with victims, students, and families. The Journal of School Nursing. 2018; 34

(1):38–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840517740191 PMID: 29103352

101. Kyriacou C, Zuin A. Cyberbullying of teachers by students on YouTube: challenging the image of

teacher authority in the digital age. Research Papers in Education. 2016; 31(3):255–73. https://doi.org/

10.1080/02671522.2015.1037337

102. Sheikh MK, Chaudahry N, Ghogare A. Depression in teachers due to cyberbullying who are working in

covid-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Current Research and Review.

2020; 12(20):98–102. https://doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2020.12201

103. Cotler JL, Fryling M, Rivituso J. Causes of cyberbullying in multi-player online gaming environments:

Gamer perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Applied Research. 2017; 10(1):4–14.

104. Tayyaba S. Rural-urban gaps in academic achievement, schooling conditions, student, and teachers’

characteristics in Pakistan. International Journal of Educational Management. 2012; 26(1):6–26.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211194356

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 22 / 23

105. Murray E. Web-based interventions for behavior change and self-management: potential, pitfalls, and

progress. Medicine 2.0. 2012; 1(2):e3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.1741 PMID: 25075231

106. Adnan M, Anwar K. Online Learning amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Students’ Perspectives. Online

Submission. 2020; 2(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309

107. Mukhtar K, Javed K, Arooj M, Sethi A. Advantages, limitations and recommendations for online learn-

ing during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020; 36(COVID19-S4):

S27–S31. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2785 PMID: 32582310

108. Tabassum F, Akram N, Moazzam M. Online learning system in higher education institutions in Paki-

stan: Investigating problems faced by students during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal

of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT). 2022; 17(2):1–15. https://doi.org/10.

4018/IJWLTT.20220301.oa1

109. Amarah A, Daimin G, Norhayatie I, Kadir AZ, Wnidayu T. Cyberbullying campaign review for new

implementation and prevention. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and

Engineering. 2020; 9(1.3): 395–40. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/6291.32020

110. Liau AK, Park Y, Gentile DA, Katna DP, Tan CH, Khoo A. iZ HERO adventure: Evaluating the effec-

tiveness of a peer-mentoring and transmedia cyberwellness program for children. Psychology of Popu-

lar Media Culture. 2017; 6(4):326337. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000094

111. Maddison A. Class structure and economic growth: India and Pakistan since the Moghuls. Routledge;

2013.

112. Chandra-Mouli V, Plesons M, Hadi S, Baig Q, Lang I. Building support for adolescent sexuality and

reproductive health education and responding to resistance in conservative contexts: Cases from

Pakistan. Global Health: Science and Practice. 2018; 6(1):128–36. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-

17-00285 PMID: 29444802

113. Ashraf E. A Statistical Study of Parents Views about Co-Education (Doctoral dissertation). 2019.

114. Perrin RD. Religiosity and honesty: Continuing the search for the consequential dimension. Review of

Religious Research. 2000; 41(4):534–544. https://doi.org/10.2307/3512319

115. Nucci LP, editor. Moral development and character education: A dialogue. McCutchan Publishing Cor-

poration; 1989.

116. Ali N Anwer M, Jaffar A. Impact of peer tutoring on learning of students. Journal for Studies in Manage-

ment and Planning. 2015; 1(2): 61–66.

PLOS ONE

Bullying prevalence in Pakistan’s educational institutes

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284864 April 27, 2023 23 / 23