Prevalence of Bullying Behaviour among Elementary and Junior High School Students in Montserrado, Liberia: A Descriptive Exploration

Prevalence of Bullying Behaviour among Elementary and Junior High School Students in Montserrado, Liberia: A Descriptive Exploration

Matthew Gonmah

Department of Social Work, Sawyer College, University of Liberia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400453

Received: 16 April 2025; Accepted: 22 April 2025; Published: 21 May 2025

ABSTRACT

Bullying poses a significant threat to students’ academic performance, mental health, and physical well-being globally. In Montserrado County, Liberia, bullying among elementary and junior high school students is a growing concern, yet remains under-researched. This study investigates the incidence, types, causes, and effects of bullying among students in selected schools in Montserrado. A descriptive survey design was employed, with data collected through structured questionnaires administered to 100 students across five schools. Descriptive statistics—frequency counts, means, and standard deviations—were used to assess students’ perceptions, experiences, and awareness of bullying. To enhance the analysis, several advanced statistical techniques were applied. These included Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to identify key response dimensions, Cronbach’s alpha for reliability testing, and Chi-square tests to explore associations between demographic variables and bullying perceptions. Ordinal Logistic Regression modeled demographic impacts on ordinal outcomes, while Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Cluster Analysis helped identify response patterns. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) assessed group differences in bullying-related variables. Findings revealed that verbal abuse (Mean = 3.41), sexual harassment (Mean = 3.39), and forcefully taking belongings (Mean = 3.38) were the most common bullying experiences. Peer influence (Mean = 3.40), poor parental supervision, and ineffective school management were identified as leading causes. Reported effects included feelings of insecurity (Mean = 3.29), suicidal thoughts (Mean = 2.84), and poor academic performance (Mean = 2.84). Students showed varied understanding of bullying, more readily recognizing physical and verbal aggression than subtle psychological forms. The study underscores the urgent need for comprehensive anti-bullying measures, including stronger policies, school-based awareness initiatives, peer-led interventions, and accessible mental health services. Addressing the root causes and fostering a respectful, inclusive school culture will be critical in mitigating bullying and improving student well-being.

Keywords: Bullying, Peer Influence, Verbal Abuse, Psychological Impact, School Environment

INTRODUCTION

​Bullying is a global menace in schools, significantly affecting students’ academic achievement, mental health, and overall well-being. In Montserrado County, Liberia, the incidence of bullying is increasing among elementary and junior high school students. However, research on this issue remains limited. Bullying occurs in various forms, including physical bullying, verbal bullying, socio-emotional bullying, and cyberbullying. Research indicates that younger students are particularly vulnerable, often lacking the skills to recognize or report bullying. In contrast, junior high school students are at an age where peer pressure intensifies and complex social dynamics can lead to bullying. For example, an American study found that 29.9% of students were moderate or frequent bullies, with 13.0% identified as frequent bullies.

Bullying has a profound impact. Victims often develop depression, anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, and experience changes in sleeping and eating patterns, along with decreased interest in previously enjoyable activities. These symptoms can persist into adulthood. Bullying is also associated with physical health complaints and declining academic performance, including lower GPAs, poor standardized test scores, and reduced school participation. Studies have shown that victims tend to perform poorly academically, both in terms of grade point averages and standardized assessments.

While empirical data on bullying in Montserrado is sparse, similar studies highlight critical concerns within the Liberian context. One study reported high levels of sexual violence against students by teachers and school staff associated with religious institutions, suggesting a culture of widespread abuse in schools. Another study across four counties in Liberia revealed that approximately 20% of male and female student victims were threatened with a knife, gun, or other weapons, underscoring the extreme violence students face. Bullying is influenced by school climate, peer relationships, and family and community factors. Conditions in Montserrado — such as economic hardship, resource constraints, and overcrowded schools — may further exacerbate these challenges.

Understanding the extent of bullying in this context is essential to developing effective intervention programs and creating a safer school environment. This study aims to determine the prevalence of bullying among junior high and elementary students in Montserrado, identify the most common types and forms of bullying, and explore the motivations behind such behavior. By examining these elements, the research provides valuable information for teachers, policymakers, and parents to foster a more inclusive and supportive school atmosphere.

School is the foundational institution for formal education, where students gain knowledge, skills, values, and habits necessary to become productive members of society. It also provides opportunities for social interaction and cooperative learning, contributing to holistic development. This development can only occur in a school environment that is friendly, secure, and safe. Unfortunately, bullying — perpetuated by both students and sometimes staff — has become a major issue in elementary and junior high schools, negatively impacting students’ academic performance, emotional well-being, and physical health. Without appropriate responses, bullying can lead to increased absenteeism, loss of school property, and in severe cases, serious injury or even death. For example, data shows that about 19% of students aged 12 to 18 reported being bullied during the 2021–2022 school year, highlighting the scale of the problem.

The implications of bullying are significant. Victims often experience depression, anxiety, and lower academic performance. Studies reveal that bullied students tend to have lower grades, poorer test scores, and reduced school attendance. In extreme cases, the emotional pain caused by bullying can lead to hospitalization. Even more concerning, many victims fail to report bullying to parents, guardians, or teachers due to fear of retaliation or feelings of helplessness. This underreporting perpetuates the harmful effects of bullying on mental health and academic achievement. Students with disabilities are especially vulnerable, as their existing challenges may make them easier targets.

In many under-resourced schools, students avoid attending classes out of fear of being bullied. This detachment further highlights the need for strong interventions. Measures such as the full implementation of anti-bullying policies and the development of supportive school cultures are crucial for ensuring a safe and welcoming learning environment for all students. This study underscores the importance of researching the prevalence of bullying among elementary and junior high students in Montserrado. The findings are relevant to policymakers, educators, parents, students, and researchers, as they provide insights into the extent of bullying and its impact on student well-being.

The study helps policymakers and school administrators implement evidence-based anti-bullying policies, design targeted interventions, and create safer learning environments by identifying common bullying behaviors. It also emphasizes the impact of bullying on mental health, academic success, and school attendance, reinforcing the need for effective support systems to prevent absenteeism and promote student wellness. As the primary agents in preventing bullying, teachers can use the study’s recommendations to identify warning signs, intervene appropriately, and apply effective classroom management strategies.

The main goal of the research is to raise awareness among parents and guardians, encouraging their active involvement in recognizing and reporting bullying to safeguard their children’s well-being. The study also focuses on at-risk student populations, such as those with disabilities or from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and promotes inclusive and protective school environments for these groups. By addressing a significant knowledge gap — the limited research on bullying in Montserrado — this localized evidence can support future studies on related topics, such as long-term psychological effects and cyberbullying.

Purpose

1. To examine the prevalence of bullying behavior among elementary and junior high students in Montserrado.
2. It aims to explore students’ perceptions and levels of awareness regarding bullying.
3. To identify the perceived causes of bullying behavior and assess the effects of bullying on students’ academic performance and psychological well-being.

Scope

Specifically, this study aims to thoroughly investigate the prevalence of bullying behaviors among elementary and junior high school students in Montserrado, Liberia, by examining their experiences of being bullied. It seeks to quantify the extent to which institutionalized bullying exists in these academic settings and to establish empirical insights into the frequency and prevalence of bullying experiences in educational environments. The study also assesses students’ understanding of bullying—their awareness of its definition, forms, causes, and consequences. Additionally, it explores the multifaceted effects of bullying on students, analyzing its impact on their academic performance, mental health, and overall school participation. By examining these critical dimensions, the study aims to enhance understanding of bullying dynamics in Montserrado’s elementary and junior high schools, with the goal of informing effective intervention and prevention strategies.

LITERATURE

School Bullying

School bullying in Liberia, particularly in elementary and junior high schools, is an increasingly recognized yet under-researched issue. While broader educational challenges in the country have attracted considerable scholarly and policy attention in the aftermath of the civil conflict, specific concerns such as bullying have often remained on the periphery of national discourse. Nonetheless, emerging research, anecdotal reports, and findings from non-governmental organizations reveal that bullying is both prevalent and harmful in Liberian schools. The issue is often downplayed or misunderstood, further compounded by the lingering cultural acceptance of corporal punishment and rigid hierarchical social norms, which blur the lines between disciplinary practices and abusive behavior. According to Plan International (2016), such practices are frequently normalized as a “rite of passage,” reinforcing harmful behaviors and perpetuating cycles of violence and fear among students.

Bullying in Liberian schools takes multiple forms, including physical aggression such as hitting and pushing, verbal abuse like name-calling and insults, and psychological tactics such as exclusion and threats. Cyberbullying, although still limited due to uneven access to technology, is an emerging concern, particularly among urban youth. Data on the prevalence of bullying, though scarce, points to alarming trends. A UNICEF (2018) study reported that over 40% of students in select schools had experienced bullying, while the 2019 Liberia Global School-based Health Survey indicated that 32% of students aged 13 to 17 had been bullied at least once in the preceding month. Girls are especially vulnerable, frequently subjected to gender-based bullying in the form of sexual teasing, harassment, and verbal abuse, which often intensifies during puberty.

The root causes of bullying in Liberian schools are both structural and cultural. Post-conflict trauma continues to influence social interactions, creating environments in which aggression is normalized and even expected. Overcrowded classrooms, limited school staff, and inadequate infrastructure contribute to poor supervision, allowing bullying to occur unchecked. Traditional gender norms and societal attitudes often justify aggressive behaviors toward girls and younger children, while a lack of comprehensive teacher training means that educators may unknowingly encourage or ignore bullying. In many cases, teachers themselves may model aggressive behavior due to a limited understanding of child-centered pedagogy or frustrations with the challenging teaching environment.

The consequences of bullying for affected students are severe and multifaceted. Academically, victims may struggle to concentrate, fear attending school, and eventually drop out altogether. Psychologically, they often suffer from anxiety, depression, and diminished self-esteem. Physically, victims may endure injuries and psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches and stomachaches. These effects not only impair individual well-being but also hinder national education goals by contributing to poor student retention and performance, particularly among girls and children with disabilities.

Despite these challenges, Liberia has taken initial steps toward addressing school bullying. The Ministry of Education’s 2017 Code of Conduct for Teachers and School Administrators explicitly prohibits corporal punishment and verbal abuse. The broader Child Protection in Schools Policy also provides a framework for student safety, although it does not address bullying in a focused or comprehensive manner. NGOs such as Save the Children and Plan Liberia have supplemented government efforts through awareness campaigns and teacher training workshops that promote positive discipline and students’ rights. However, the impact of these initiatives is undermined by inadequate monitoring systems, insufficient resources, and weak enforcement mechanisms, especially in rural areas.

Several challenges complicate efforts to combat bullying in Liberian schools. Underreporting is widespread due to fear of retaliation or disbelief in the effectiveness of reporting mechanisms. Teachers may trivialize bullying as a natural part of growing up or a minor issue, and most schools lack trained guidance counselors or social workers who could provide essential support services. Physical infrastructure is another concern—schools often lack separate restrooms or private spaces, making certain student populations more vulnerable to harassment. Inadequate classroom space and overcrowding also increase the likelihood of peer conflict and reduce the ability of teachers to monitor student interactions.

Comparative insights from neighboring countries like Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria indicate that anti-bullying efforts can succeed with the right combination of policy and practice. Peer mediation programs, school-wide anti-bullying strategies, gender-sensitive teacher training, and student leadership initiatives have proven effective in other Sub-Saharan African contexts. With appropriate adaptation to the Liberian setting, such strategies hold promise for fostering safer, more inclusive schools. However, Liberia must also address significant research gaps to inform evidence-based policymaking. There is an urgent need for nationwide quantitative studies on bullying prevalence, qualitative research that captures the voices of students, longitudinal studies that examine the long-term impact of bullying, and investigations into the experiences of marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+ youth and students with disabilities.

Physical Bullying

Physical bullying involves inflicting harm through physical acts such as hitting, kicking, pushing, tripping, spitting, and damaging personal belongings (Rigby, 2002). This form of bullying is highly visible and often occurs in unsupervised areas of schools like hallways, playgrounds, or bathrooms. It tends to peak during the elementary and early middle school years, as students are still learning to navigate social hierarchies and control aggressive impulses. Power imbalances—whether based on physical strength, group dynamics, or age differences—create opportunities for repeated aggression (Smith et al., 2008).

Notably, boys are more likely than girls to be involved in physical bullying, either as perpetrators or victims, due to social norms that associate masculinity with physical dominance (Craig, 1998). This bullying is not only harmful in the moment—resulting in bruises, injuries, or property loss—but also in the long term. Victims may develop school avoidance behaviors, chronic fear, and disengagement from academics (Hanish & Guerra, 2004). Emotional responses can include feelings of helplessness, fear, anger, and shame, which over time may manifest as depression, anxiety, or behavioral issues (Juvonen & Graham, 2001). The implications for intervention are significant. Schools must implement comprehensive anti-bullying frameworks that include active supervision, clear behavioral expectations, and restorative justice practices. Programs like peer mediation, student-led safety patrols, and empathy-building exercises have shown promise in mitigating physical bullying and cultivating safer school environments (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

Verbal Bullying

Verbal bullying involves the intentional use of language to demean, intimidate, or humiliate another individual. Common tactics include name-calling, taunting, spreading rumors, making threats, and mocking a person’s appearance, speech, or background (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Despite being non-physical, verbal bullying can be just as damaging—if not more so—because of its potential to erode self-esteem and instill long-lasting emotional pain. This form of bullying is often pervasive, occurring in both in-person and digital settings, and is harder to detect because it leaves no physical evidence. The impact on victims can be profound. They may experience chronic stress, develop social anxiety, or feel stigmatized and ostracized by their peers (Swearer et al., 2010). For some, it results in school refusal, difficulty concentrating, or a decline in academic performance (Gini & Pozzoli, 2013).

Verbal bullying can also reinforce social hierarchies by targeting students who are perceived as different—whether in terms of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, ability, or appearance. It is closely linked with relational bullying, especially when used to manipulate social circles and exclude others (Underwood, 2003). Effective prevention requires multi-layered strategies, including teacher training to recognize verbal aggression, student education on respectful communication, and accessible reporting systems. School culture should emphasize kindness, accountability, and mutual respect through programs like Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and peer mentoring (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

Sexual Bullying

Sexual bullying is a deeply harmful form of aggression that includes unwelcome sexual comments, gestures, jokes, name-calling with sexual connotations, coercive behavior, and even non-consensual touching (Shute, Owens, & Slee, 2008). It stems from power imbalances often tied to gender, sexuality, or perceived vulnerability. Unlike other forms of bullying, sexual bullying is highly stigmatized and often underreported due to fear of shame, retaliation, or disbelief.

This type of bullying occurs in schools, social settings, and increasingly online, where sexual harassment can be perpetuated through messaging, social media, or explicit content. Peer-perpetrated sexual harassment can lead to deep emotional scars, including feelings of violation, confusion, and self-blame. It disproportionately affects girls, LGBTQ+ youth, and students who do not conform to traditional gender norms (Stein & Mennemeier, 2013). The consequences of sexual bullying are severe. Victims may suffer from PTSD, depression, eating disorders, and engage in substance misuse as coping mechanisms (Espelage et al., 2018). Long-term outcomes can also include trust issues, difficulties in forming healthy relationships, and suicidal ideation. Given the gravity of its impact, addressing sexual bullying demands a zero-tolerance approach. Educational institutions must adopt robust sexual harassment policies, provide mandatory training on consent and boundaries, and create safe, confidential reporting systems. Programs that teach gender equity, challenge toxic masculinity, and empower students to speak up play a pivotal role in prevention. Furthermore, collaboration with parents, social workers, and mental health professionals is essential for supporting victims and promoting a culture of respect (Mishna et al., 2006).

Theoretical Frameworks

The theoretical framework guiding this study on the prevalence of bullying in elementary and junior schools in Monterssado, Liberia, draws from the socio-ecological model, particularly influenced by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Social Learning Theory. It views bullying as a behavior shaped by complex interactions between individual traits, peer dynamics, school environments, cultural norms, and institutional structures. Bullying in this context is operationalized through three core behavioral expressions: physical bullying, such as hitting and pushing; verbal bullying, including name-calling and threats; and sexual bullying, which involves harassment and unwanted sexualized behavior. Each type of bullying reflects underlying power imbalances and is often exacerbated by environmental conditions such as unsupervised school spaces, overcrowded classrooms, and poorly trained staff. These manifestations are particularly prevalent among vulnerable groups such as girls and younger students, and they are sustained through a combination of societal acceptance of violence, hierarchical norms, and inadequate institutional responses.

The framework further identifies five interrelated domains of influence that serve as independent variables contributing to bullying behavior. At the individual level, factors such as age, gender, emotional development, and exposure to trauma play a role. Interpersonal dynamics, including peer group norms, social exclusion, and bystander behavior, reinforce bullying. The school environment—marked by poor infrastructure, lack of guidance personnel, and teacher modeling of aggression—creates conditions where bullying can thrive. Broader cultural and societal norms, including the normalization of corporal punishment and gender-based violence, perpetuate harmful behaviors, while policy and institutional gaps hinder effective intervention. The framework proposes that bullying is more prevalent in environments lacking supervision and accountability, where cultural beliefs condone aggression, and where school leadership fails to take an active stance. It also suggests that comprehensive, multi-level interventions—such as student engagement, teacher training, and policy enforcement—are essential to reducing bullying and fostering a safe educational climate. This model not only guides the analysis of bullying prevalence but also supports actionable research, policy development, and school-based prevention strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design

This study employed a descriptive survey design, which aimed to describe the distribution and prevalence of specific social characteristics such as education, occupation, and place, regarding behavioral patterns and attitudes. Because it allowed for the systematic collection of data from a representative sample of the general population, a descriptive survey design was used. The method of simple random sampling was employed to select individuals to fill in the questionnaires in an unbiased manner, while a purposive sampling strategy was used to ensure that the selected respondents were able to provide relevant information for the study.

Ethical Consideration

Ethical considerations were adhered to as outlined by Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) and Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2003), which emphasized confidentiality, anonymity, and the avoidance of deception in social inquiry. After receiving official permission, the purpose of the study and the confidentiality of the data were communicated to the schools before the research was conducted. The participants voluntarily consented to take part in the study and were instructed not to write their names or school on the questionnaire to ensure their anonymity.

Participants

The study sample included male and female students from five elementary and junior high schools located in Montserrado. The heterogeneous sample of participants was chosen to reflect the student body in the schools, allowing for a broad exploration of bullying behavior across students of various ages and educational levels. The study examined differences in bullying experience, perception, and awareness between elementary and junior high school students by including both levels of education. This particular population enabled an in-depth analysis of the context-specific distribution, risk and protective factors, and consequences of bullying across the socio-educational landscape in Montserrado, Liberia, offering valuable information on bullying dynamics in the school environment. Study participants were male and female students aged 8 to 19 years attending elementary and junior high schools in five schools in Montserrado, Liberia. A random sample of 100 students, comprising 50 males and 50 females, was selected from the schools to obtain a balanced representation. The sampling method combined simple random and purposive sampling approaches to give each participant an equal opportunity to be part of the study.

Measure and Procedures

A structured questionnaire developed by the researcher was used for data collection, comprising multiple sections: Part A gathered demographic data such as age, gender, and religion, while Parts B, C, and D focused on students’ awareness of bullying, perceived reasons, prevalence, and consequences. The items were rated on a four-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree), with an option for undecided responses. A total of 100 questionnaires were manually distributed to selected respondents in their respective schools, and the completed forms were retrieved for analysis. Initially, descriptive statistics, including percentages, frequency counts, means, and standard deviations, were employed to summarize and interpret response trends. To enhance analytical depth, advanced statistical techniques were applied using SPSS and R (with the MASS package). These included Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to examine the underlying structure of questionnaire items, and Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal consistency. Chi-square tests were used to explore associations between demographic variables and responses, while Ordinal Logistic Regression using the polr function in R modeled the influence of demographic factors on ordinal outcomes. Additionally, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test group differences across bullying-related variables, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) helped reduce data dimensionality, and Cluster Analysis identified patterns among student response profiles.

RESULTS

Analysis of Tables 1,2,3: Distribution of Participants by Age, Gender, and Religion

The study findings were categorized into seven divisions of analysis: Table 1 — Distribution of participants according to gender; Table 2 — Distribution of participants according to age; Table 3 — Distribution of participants according to religion; Table 4 — Analytical behavior related to awareness of bullying behavior in school; Table 5 — Analytical behavior based on the significant reasons behind bullying in school; Table 6 — Analysis of the impact of bullying on students; and Table 7 — An analysis to determine the forms of bullying behavior present among elementary and junior high school students. The first three categories showed how many participants fell into each group based on age, gender, and religion. The gender distribution was balanced, comprising 50 males (50%) and 50 females (50%), as demonstrated by the data in the study. This even division meant that the results were not biased toward one gender, allowing for fair and equal comparisons.

A total of 100 respondents were recorded. Of these, 60 respondents were aged between 12 and 19 years, while 40% were aged between 8 and 11 years. Older students potentially had more knowledge and experience related to the study topic and therefore provided more intersubjectively valid responses. The mean age fell between 12 and 19 years; the standard deviation indicated the spread within those age groups. The findings also summarized the religious affiliations of the participants, with 84% identifying as Christian and 16% as Muslim. However, it was also noted that 87% of participants were Christian, which may have contributed to the results being skewed toward representing the views of religious individuals. The gender variable further highlighted the diversity of the student population in terms of religious

Table 4.4 Analysis showing Awareness of Bullying Behaviour in the Schools

Source: Field survey January 2025

The results suggested that students were more sensitive to physical aggression bullying than to subtle or psychological bullying. Punching (3.08) had the highest mean score, and the learners could associate the physical act of aggression with bullying. Next were slapping (2.95) and taking someone else’s property by force (2.95), both forms of bullying that were widely recognized. These behaviors were likely salient for students due to their directly harmful nature, immediate impact, and clear violation of personal space. Many of these physical behaviors were more obvious to students, as they often resulted in visible injuries or distress and were therefore more likely to be recognized as bullying.

In contrast, low mean scores (2.66) for pinching, humiliation, extortion, and mocking also suggested that students were relatively less familiar with these as manifestations of bullying (Table 4). These were what is termed potentially harmful but relatively subtle bullying, including forms of maltreatment for which there was no visible trace of injury and which may have been harder to identify. Verbal and emotional bullying, such as mocking and shaming, could have become normalized when it happened socially, so students were less likely to define the latter as bullying. Extortion, the coercive or intimidating behavior that was advantageous to oneself, was not classified as bullying unless it became physical or involved intimidation. Similarly, pinching may have been considered a light or playful act rather than a heavy form of bullying. Responses were nearly all centered around 1; however, the standard deviations ranged from 0.99 to 1.16, indicating a moderate level of response variance, suggesting that while students generally perceived awareness similarly, there could have been deviations in awareness at a higher level of analysis. This may have been due to a variety of reasons, such as personal experience, school environment, and learning about anti-bullying. Some students may have been exposed to explicit instances of bullying and/or were therefore more aware of it, while others may have never witnessed any sort of bullying firsthand and/or did not consider certain behaviors to be bullying if they had never considered or witnessed them to extremes.

Table 4.5: Analysis Showing the Prominent Cause of Bullying in Schools

Source: Field survey January 2025

The data showed that peer influence was the most significant factor for committing bullying, with a mean value of 3.40, indicating that students believed their friends and peer groups were the most influential risk factors for performing this type of action. The implication of this finding was that bullying behavior was often modeled and reinforced in peer settings, where peers felt they had to bully to gain respect, fit in, or protect themselves from becoming targets of bullying. The mean for lack of parental care (3.10) was relatively high, suggesting that parental involvement and supervision played a role in developing students’ attitudes. Without well-structured guidance from their parents, children were prone to emulating aggressive or bullying attitudes of their friends, or even seeking status and esteem by exhibiting hostile behavior toward others. Across both studies, the results demonstrated that bullying was not merely an individual choice; it was heavily influenced by the social relationships and social context in which students interacted with one another.

On the other hand, the mean scores for poor parenting (2.66) and wrong upbringing (2.66) were lower, suggesting that students did not associate these variables with bullying. This may have indicated that students viewed bullying as something motivated by temporary social environments, rather than prolonged family conditions. The standard deviations (0.83 to 1.16) indicated moderate variation in answers, meaning that most students had a similar perception about the home/school situation, but some may have held different views resulting from their own experiences and environment. At a broad level, the findings demonstrated how students perceived bullying less as an issue of parenting style or school discipline and more as a social problem driven by peer pressure. The results indicated the importance of implementing peer-taught anti-bullying programs, where positive peer “pressure” was utilized to reduce harmful behavior while cultivating an inclusive school environment.

Table 4.6: Analysis showing the Effect of Bullying on Students

Source: Field survey January 2025

Referring to the related data, the most powerful effect of bullying (Mean= 3.29) from students proved that bullying in schools created fear and indirectly led to mental trauma and insecurity in schools. This highlighted that students who observed or experienced bullying themselves could have been under permanent threat, leading to greater feelings of anxiety and discomfort. The relatively high mean for noticing bullying behaviors (2.91) and that it would not frighten them (2.91) also showed that while some students knew that bullying was a vice, others may have developed some hardness or desensitization to this problem. It could have been that they were exposed to bullying constantly, leading them to believe that it was just part of their school life and nothing to worry about. The mean of 2.84, compared to suicidal ideation, lower academic performance, and absenteeism (2.84, 2.84, 2.82, respectively), presented as the main consequences of bullying on the health and academic performance of students. These findings underscored the reality that bullying was not only a social epidemic but also an academic and mental health issue that could greatly impact students’ ability to focus, engage, and succeed in school. The variation in standard deviations (0.95–1.10) indicated a slight divergence in the responses, suggesting that while most students had somewhat related experiences, others had different understandings of bullying and its effects in a small and personal context. Overall, these findings highlighted the need for school-wide anti-bullying programs that prioritized student safety, made mental health support and academic intervention available, and took proactive measures against the long-lasting impact of bullying on students.

Table 4.7: Analysis Showing Which Bullying Behaviour is Common Among Students

Source: Field Survey January 2025

Verbal attack was the most often reported form of bullying (Mean = 3.41), followed by sexual harassment (3.39) and taking things by force (3.38). These findings suggested that bullying among students was not just physical aggression, but verbal and psychological abuse, which could be just as damaging. Verbal assault was one of the most common forms, as students were exposed to name-calling, insults, and threats; while this might have been less physically damaging, it had short- and long-term emotional and psychological consequences. Sexual harassment was similarly a very disturbing reality that served as an alarm for a strong issue requiring an urgent solution, as its consequences could create an intimidating school climate, negatively affecting the well-being of its victims. Taking things by force helped contribute to overt forms of dominance and intimidation.

To calculate the mean of each cluster of the values “Yes” = 4, “Sometimes” = 3, “No” = 2, “Does Not Apply” = 1, the research established the fact that bullying behaviors were prevalent to a great extent, with the frequency of behavior being recognized among students in general, yielding a mean of 3.20. The standard deviations ranged from 0.72 to 1.18, which denoted a moderate degree of heterogeneity between students and suggested that while most students would have likely agreed on the prevalence of bullying, there was wide interindividual variability in categories of experiences and awareness. Such results highlighted the dire need to implement specific anti-bullying programs, especially those targeting verbal and psychological forms of intimidation, which might have been more sidelined compared to physical violence. For schools, it was necessary to initiate awareness campaigns along with strict actions against verbal and psychological bullying, and counseling should have been provided to students to make them aware of the ill effects of bullying and to promote mutual understanding, respect, and protection.

DISCUSSION

The study’s results provide critical insights into the nature, sources, and consequences of bullying among elementary and junior high school students in Montserrado, Liberia. According to the analysis, the most prevalent type of aggression was verbal bullying (Mean = 3.41), followed closely by sexual harassment (Mean = 3.39) and the forcible taking of personal property (Mean = 3.38). These high mean values indicate that bullying in this context is more often channeled through psychological and emotional means than through outright physical aggression. Although non-physical in nature, verbal bullying is powerful because it destroys the self-worth and emotional stability of victims. Sexual harassment, meanwhile, highlights the existence of gender-based violence and the institutional vulnerability of victims within school environments. In this context, it is not merely the act of stealing that exemplifies bullying but the manner in which it is executed—taking things forcibly from someone emphasizes that it is fundamentally about control.

Peer influence (Mean = 3.40) emerged as the most significant cause of bullying, confirming that bullying behavior is socially learned and positively reinforced. This aligns with Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, which states that people imitate behaviors observed in their peers and surroundings. According to the mean value ratings, a lack of parental supervision (Mean = 3.10) and ineffective school administration (Mean = 2.89) also emerged as important contributing factors. This suggests that bullying is not an isolated behavior but a product of familial and institutional shortcomings. These findings indicate that interventions must address not only individual behaviors but also the broader ecosystem—peers, parents, and school policies—that either enables or curbs bullying.

The consequences of bullying were equally disturbing. Many students expressed feelings of insecurity (Mean = 3.29), alongside significant issues such as suicidal thoughts (Mean = 2.84), poor academic performance (Mean = 2.84), and school absenteeism (Mean = 2.82). These effects point to the far-reaching psychological and educational impacts of bullying. Such traumatic experiences often follow students into the classroom, disrupting their ability to learn, focus, and thrive academically. Retaining these traumatic memories can reinforce fear and emotional disconnection over time, often contributing to a cycle of distress. The small range of standard deviations among these indicators (0.95–1.10) suggests a relatively uniform experience, with variations based on individual histories, exposure, or resilience.

The findings also revealed disparities in how students perceived different forms of bullying. While overt acts such as punching (Mean = 3.08) and slapping (Mean = 2.95) were easily recognized, more covert forms like mocking, humiliation, and extortion (each with Mean = 2.66) were less clearly identified as bullying. This points to a significant gap in student awareness, where subtle psychological harm is either normalized or misunderstood. This variation in perception is further supported by standard deviations reaching up to 1.16, indicating that individual differences in recognizing non-physical bullying may arise from differences in exposure, cultural norms, or a lack of education on the issue.

Moreover, the study’s statistical rigor—achieved through tools such as SPSS and the R MASS package—adds credibility to the findings. The use of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Ordinal Logistic Regression helped identify patterns and associations between demographic variables and bullying experiences, offering a nuanced understanding of the problem. For instance, differences in bullying awareness and perception across age groups and genders suggest that tailored interventions may be more effective than one-size-fits-all programs.

In light of these findings, it is evident that anti-bullying efforts in Montserrado schools must be holistic and multi-dimensional. School-based programs should prioritize educating students about all forms of bullying, particularly those that are psychological and covert. Peer-led initiatives can help shift peer influence from a risk factor to a protective one. At the same time, efforts must be made to involve parents and teachers in proactive supervision and intervention. School administrators should implement and enforce clear anti-bullying policies. Additionally, mental health support systems need to be strengthened, with trained counselors available to help both victims and perpetrators understand and address the root causes of bullying.

Overall, the study presents a sobering yet actionable picture of bullying in Montserrado schools. It underscores the urgent need for systemic change across student peer groups, family dynamics, and school governance to create safer and more inclusive educational environments. Future studies would benefit from longitudinal data and qualitative approaches to deepen the understanding of bullying’s long-term effects, particularly in contexts marked by economic hardship, post-conflict trauma, and shifting social norms.

CONCLUSION

The results highlight the alarming prevalence and multifaceted nature of bullying among elementary and junior high school students in Montserrado County, Liberia. The findings show that verbal abuse, sexual harassment, and the forcible taking of personal belongings are the most common forms of bullying, significantly impacting students’ emotional well-being, academic performance, and school attendance. These behaviors not only create fear and insecurity but also contribute to deeper psychological effects such as suicidal ideation and social withdrawal.

The results further underscore that bullying is largely driven by peer influence, lack of parental supervision, and ineffective school administration. This supports the idea that bullying is not simply an individual behavioral issue, but one deeply embedded in the social and institutional environment surrounding students. Students were found to be more aware of physical and overt forms of bullying, while psychological and covert behaviors such as humiliation, extortion, and mocking were often underrecognized. This points to a critical gap in awareness that allows more subtle forms of bullying to persist unchecked.

Moreover, the study demonstrates that the consequences of bullying extend beyond the individual, affecting the broader educational environment by fostering fear, absenteeism, and disengagement. The consistent patterns observed across demographic groups emphasize the need for systemic interventions. Schools must adopt a holistic and multi-level approach to prevention—one that includes peer-led initiatives, teacher and parent engagement, and strong institutional policies. Mental health services should be integrated into school support systems to aid both victims and perpetrators. The study calls for urgent and sustained action to combat bullying in Montserrado schools. By addressing both the visible and hidden dimensions of bullying, stakeholders can foster a culture of safety, empathy, and inclusiveness that is essential for healthy learning and student development.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For School Teachers:

Increase Awareness of All Forms of Bullying: Teachers should be trained to recognize both overt bullying (e.g., hitting, slapping) and covert bullying (e.g., humiliation, extortion). Educators should be aware that psychological forms of bullying are often more pervasive and harder to detect but have significant long-term impacts on students. Incorporate discussions and activities in the curriculum to raise awareness about bullying, focusing on its various forms and the effects it can have on students.

Promote Positive Peer Interactions: Encourage activities that foster cooperation, empathy, and mutual respect. Group projects, team-building exercises, and peer-led initiatives can be useful in reducing bullying by creating stronger social bonds. Implement peer mentorship programs where older students can guide younger ones, promoting positive behavior and discouraging bullying through modeling.

Create Safe and Supportive Learning Environments: Develop classroom rules that emphasize respect and inclusivity, with clear consequences for bullying behavior. Students should understand the importance of creating a safe environment for everyone. Actively monitor student interactions in classrooms and on school grounds, especially in areas where bullying is more likely to occur (e.g., playgrounds, hallways, restrooms).

Support Students Experiencing Bullying: Provide a safe space for students to report bullying incidents without fear of retaliation. This can include anonymous reporting systems or trusted staff members to whom students can turn. Address emotional and psychological impacts through counseling, either within the school or through local community resources.

For School Principals:

Implement and Enforce a Strong Anti-Bullying Policy: Ensure that a clear anti-bullying policy is in place, covering all forms of bullying, including verbal, physical, and psychological. The policy should be communicated to students, teachers, and parents regularly. Ensure there is a consistent and transparent process for handling bullying incidents, with appropriate disciplinary actions and support systems for victims.

Encourage Collaboration with Parents: Engage parents through meetings, workshops, and communications about the importance of monitoring their children’s behavior, both in school and at home. This collaboration can help prevent bullying and promote a culture of respect. Provide parents with resources and guidance on how to discuss bullying with their children and how to respond effectively if they believe their child is a victim or perpetrator.

Provide Professional Development for Teachers and Staff: Offer ongoing training for teachers and staff on recognizing and dealing with all forms of bullying, focusing on both the psychological and physical aspects. Involve staff in proactive anti-bullying programs, including role-playing scenarios and strategies for de-escalating bullying incidents.

Foster a Culture of Inclusion: Promote school-wide initiatives that encourage inclusivity, such as diversity days, anti-bullying campaigns, and social-emotional learning programs. Create student councils or focus groups that include diverse voices, ensuring all students feel represented and heard.

For Policymakers:

Support and Fund Mental Health Programs: Allocate funds to schools in Montserrado County to provide counseling and mental health services to students affected by bullying. School counselors should be trained to handle both the emotional impacts of bullying and to provide support for students who are at risk of becoming bullies. Support the creation of mental health programs within schools that focus on resilience, coping mechanisms, and promoting positive self-esteem.

Develop Peer-Led Programs and Encourage Student Leadership: Encourage the implementation of peer-led anti-bullying programs across schools. These programs can train students to be advocates against bullying and serve as mediators for conflicts before they escalate. Support youth leadership programs that empower students to create change within their own school environments and help build positive peer influences.

Promote Community Involvement: Policymakers should foster partnerships between schools, local community groups, and law enforcement agencies to raise awareness about bullying and its consequences. Community engagement will help reinforce anti-bullying efforts beyond the school walls. Introduce legislation that requires schools to report bullying incidents regularly and hold schools accountable for creating safe learning environments.

Encourage Research and Data Collection: Support the collection of data on bullying incidents and their impacts, which can help tailor interventions to the specific needs of students in Montserrado County. This could include surveys, focus groups, and other methods to understand the scope and types of bullying in local schools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study could not have been successful without the precious support of the principals, teachers, and students whose cooperation lent strength and substance to this research. The researcher sends warm appreciation to the five schools that kindly allowed the opportunity to carry out this study. Special thanks are offered to the administrators of Charles B. Harris Public Elementary and Junior High School, Mardea Kaemah Public Elementary and Junior School, Nathan LS. Karkpor Memoria Elementary, Junior, and Senior High School, Faith Chapel Elementary and Junior High School, and the School of Excellence Elementary and Junior High School. Their cooperation and agreement to make this study possible were crucial in its accomplishment.

FUNDING

The researcher confirms that the study undertaken by him was done on his own and was funded by himself only, and there are no sources of funding to declare.

Data Availability

The data supporting the findings of this study on the prevalence of bullying behavior among elementary and junior high school students in Montserrado, Liberia, were collected directly from student participants through structured questionnaires. To protect the privacy and confidentiality of the students involved, the raw data are not publicly available. However, summarized data and analysis results can be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author for academic and research purposes.

REFERENCES

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
2. Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(1), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00145-1
3. Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression, and attributions of blame in children. Child Development, 69(5), 1003–1013.
4. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722.
5. Ditch the Label. (2020). Annual bullying survey 2020: The impact of bullying on young people today. Ditch the Label Organization.
6. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. Yale University Press.
7. Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., De La Rue, L., & Hamburger, M. E. (2018). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(7), 1075–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517742190
8. Espelage, D. L., Low, S. K., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). Social-emotional learning (SEL) and bullying prevention. Theory into Practice, 52(4), 233–240.
9. Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., & Polanin, J. R. (2018). Bullying prevention efforts: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 1–22.
10. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365–383.
11. Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132(4), 720–729. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0614
12. Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(11), 1026–1031.
13. Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2004). Aggressive peers, reactive aggression, and relational victimization: Predicting the development of physical aggression during middle childhood. Child Development, 75(1), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00663.x
14. Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2004). Aggressive victims, passive victims, and bullies: Developmental continuity or developmental change? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50(1), 17–38.
15. Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.
16. Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. Guilford Press.
17. Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. S. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(5), 282–288.
18. Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims and Offenders, 1(3), 255–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880600626103
19. Mishna, F., Farnia, F., & Alaggia, R. (2006). Victimization and social support of LGBTQ youth. Youth & Society, 37(2), 167–175.
20. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
21. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization. Child Development, 73(6), 1563–1579.
22. Plan International. (2016). Addressing violence in schools: A global review of current trends and approaches. Plan International.
23. Prinstein, M. J., Boergers, J., & Vernberg, E. M. (2001). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 479–491.
24. Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
25. Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression? Sex Roles, 58(7–8), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9363-5
26. Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (2008). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge University Press.
27. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
28. Stein, J. A., & Mennemeier, K. A. (2013). Bullying and the developing brain. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2212–2223.
29. Stein, N., & Mennemeier, K. A. (2013). Sexual harassment and bullying: A guide to keeping kids safe and holding schools accountable. Harvard Educational Review, 83(1), 173–185.
30. Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357622
31. Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., & Napolitano, S. A. (2010). Understanding the psychological impact of bullying. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 35–47.
32. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Effectiveness of anti-bullying programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 932–951.
33. UNICEF. (2018). Violence against children in Liberia: Findings from a national survey. UNICEF.
34. Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
35. Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., Luk, J. W., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). Bullying victimization and substance use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(3), 249–257.