Bullying and victimization persist as severe problems with various short- and long-term consequences (e.g., Moore et al., 2017), especially during adolescence. Therefore, research on possible protective factors for bullying and victimization is still needed. One of them can be mindfulness as adolescents who are more mindful may be involved in bullying and/or victimization to a lesser extent (Liu et al., 2022; Riggs & Brown, 2017; Yuan & Liu, 2021), however, the relationship between mindfulness, bullying, and victimization was mostly mediated by other factors, such as impulsivity, moral disengagement, internalizing and externalizing problems (e.g., Georgiou et al., 2019, 2021).

Bullying can be identified throughout several existing definitions of bullying behaviour which share the following common features: the purpose of bullying is to harm, it lasts for longer periods, and there is a difference in power between the bully and the victim. In this direction, current definitions describe bullying as a goal-directed behaviour that harms another individual in the context of power imbalance (Volk et al., 2017). There are several types of bullying, such as physical bullying, verbal bullying, social bullying (Marsh et al., 2011) and cyberbullying (Slonje & Smith, 2008).

Mindfulness is a non-judgmental and accepting awareness of present events and experiences (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Contemporary theories broaden mindfulness conceptualization into perceiving mindfulness as an ability rather than a trait as it can be enhanced by practice (i.e., yoga, mindfulness training). Adolescents that are more mindful are better at decision-making, have higher self-control and self-regulation, are better at decision-making, have a more positive and less negative affect, and their anger feelings are reduced in comparison with their peers who have lower levels of mindfulness (Black et al., 2012; Franco et al., 2016; Riggs et al., 2015).

There is a growing body of evidence regarding the relationship between bullying, victimization, and mindfulness, however, the research is still scarce as the connection between them is not as clear as expected, especially concerning bullying. Mindfulness and bullying are mostly negatively connected (Georgiou et al., 2019). As for the association between mindfulness and victimization, more mindful children had a lower risk of being victims of bullying behaviour (Murray-Close et al., 2014). Regarding the relationship between mindfulness and cyberbullying, studies showed that lower levels of mindfulness are related to cyberbullying over time (Yuan & Liu, 2021).

Furthermore, several researchers (e.g., Liu et al., 2022) aimed to study mindfulness-based interventions as anti-bullying programs. Programs included several mindfulness activities, such as quieting the mind, moving mindfully, mindful attention, managing negative emotions and negative thinking, and acknowledgement of self and others (Liu et al., 2022; Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). Results suggested that youth that was included in the training had lower bullying behaviour scores (Liu et al., 2022).

Truth be told, more research is needed in this area to more thoroughly understand the role of mindfulness when examining bullying behaviour, especially its subdomains as it is crucial to understand the protective factors in order to offer approppriate support for adolescents in need. Therefore, the aim of the present paper is to examine the relationship between mindfulness, different types of bullying and victimization (physical, verbal, social, cyber) by using structural equation modelling.

Our sample included 1979 participants from Slovenia (57.4 % females, 42.5 % males, 0.1 % nonbinary), aged from 13 to 19 (M = 15.34; SD = 1.19). The majority of participants attended 20 different upper-secondary schools (1404 students; 70.8%); most of them were females (57.8%). The age of these students varied from 14 to 19 (M = 15.91; SD = 0.91). The other third of the participants attended 21 different lower-secondary schools (577 students; 29.7%) and were between 13 and 16 years old (M = 13.96; SD = 0.38). Most of them were females (56.3%). Regarding measurements, three questionnaires were used. We applied Adolescent Peer Report Instrument - Bully/Target (APRI-BT, Marsh et al., 2011) to measure three subdomains (physical, verbal, and social) of traditional bullying and victimization. For assessing cyberbullying and cybervictimization, we used the Revised Adolescent Peer Report Instrument (Griezel et al., 2012) and for measuring mindfulness, we employed Mindful Attention Awareness Scale – Adolescents (Brown et al., 2011). After examining descriptive statistics, correlations and reliabilities using IBM SPSS Statistics 29, we examined CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) and SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) models using Mplus (Version 8.4; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2022). The full information maximum likelihood (FIML) algorithm was used to handle missing data and assess parameters in the model. Separate CFAs were conducted for each construct. If indicated so by modification indices and justified with the content of the items, correlated errors were allowed between some items. ESEM models were brought into the path model with prediction paths from mindfulness to several domains of bullying and victimization.

CFA results showed an adequate fit for all included variables. For mindfulness, all loadings were higher than 0.52 (all ps < .001) and the model fit the data adequately: χ2(77) = 1120.54, p <. 001, CFI = .912, RMSEA = .083, 90% CI [.079, .088], SRMR = .042. As for traditional bullying and victimization, all loadings were higher than 0.58 (all ps < .001), and the model fit the data adequately as well, χ2(577) = 5850.623, p <. 001, CFI = .901, RMSEA = .068, 90% CI [.066, .070], SRMR = .045. Furthermore, there was an adequate model fit for cyberbullying and cybervictimization, χ2(50) = 845.296, p <. 001, CFI = .958, RMSEA = .090, 90% CI [.085, .095], SRMR = .040, all loadings were higher than .53 (all ps < .001). The final model had an adequate fit, χ2(1785) = 10698.222, p <. 001, CFI = .900, RMSEA = .050, 90% CI [.049, .051], SRMR = .043. All traditional bullying and victimization subdomains (physical, verbal, social) and cyberbullying were positively correlated (rs > .52, all ps < .001). Mindfulness negatively predicted physical, verbal, social and cyberbullying and victimization (all ps < .01), however, the relationship was stronger among mindfulness and verbal and social victimization with regard to other subdomains of bullying or victimization. The results show that mindfulness is significantly negatively related to all bullying and victimization subdomains. It seems that adolescents who are calmer, non-reactive to impulses and experiences in their lives, non-judging and accepting do not indulge in bullying behaviour, not as bullies and not as victims. Moreover, these results imply that mindfulness-based practice should be included in antibullying interventions or, even better, it should be promoted for all students who can benefit from being more mindful. Practical implications for education will be more thoroughly discussed.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. Franco, C., Amutio, A., López-González, L., Oriol, X., & Martínez-Taboada, C. (2016). Effect of a mindfulness training program on the impulsivity and aggression levels of adolescents with behavioral problems in the classroom. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(SEP), 1385. Georgiou, S. N., Charalambous, K., & Stavrinides, P. (2019). Mindfulness, impulsivity, and moral disengagement as parameters of bullying and victimization at school. Georgiou, S. N., Charalambous, K., & Stavrinides, P. (2021). The mediating effects of adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems on the relationship between emotion regulation, mindfulness and bullying/ victimization at school. School Psychology International, 42(6), 657–676. Liu, X., Xiao, R., & Tang, W. (2022). The Impact of School-Based Mindfulness Intervention on Bullying Behaviors Among Teenagers: Mediating Effect of Self-Control. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, 21–22. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 701–732. Murray-Close, D., Crick, N. R., Tseng, W. L., Lafko, N., Burrows, C., Pitula, C., & Ralston, P. (2014). Physiological stress reactivity and physical and relational aggression: The moderating roles of victimization, type of stressor, and child gender. Development and Psychopathology, 26(3), 589–603. Riggs, N. R., Black, D. S., & Ritt-Olson, A. (2015). Associations between dispositional mindfulness and executive function in early adolescence. Springer, 24(9), 2745–2751. Riggs, N. R., & Brown, S. M. (2017). Prospective Associations Between Peer Victimization and Dispositional Mindfulness in Early Adolescence. Prevention Science, 18, 481–489. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Education Program on Pre- and Early Adolescents’ Well-Being and Social and Emotional Competence. Mindfulness, 1(3), 137–151. Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying?: Personality and Social Sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154. Yuan, G., & Liu, Z. (2021). Longitudinal cross-lagged analyses between cyberbullying perpetration, mindfulness and depression among Chinese high school students. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(11), 1872–1881.