Bullying is a wicked problem. Even when we think we’ve found a solution and improved the situation for most children, we often uncover unexpected challenges for others. One such phenomenon, called the safe context paradox, has been a major topic of discussion in bullying literature over the past few years. It refers to findings showing that the consequences of being bullied are particularly harmful in environments where the overall level of victimization is low. For example, in a classroom or school where only a few students are targeted by bullying, those victims tend to suffer more than their counterparts in a setting where victimization is more common.
+
In my research group, we have explored the safe context paradox using various methods and designs to rule out alternative explanations. Initially, we hypothesized that the direction of the effect might be reversed. Specifically, we considered whether in “healthier” contexts, only psychosocially maladjusted children were at risk of victimization, which could explain their heightened distress. However, this turned out not to be the case.
We also questioned whether the safe context paradox might be a methodological artifact, arising because researchers often focus on between-person differences in adjustment. In other words, perhaps victimized children simply appeared to suffer more in healthier contexts because their well-being stood out in stark contrast to the generally high levels of well-being among their peers. Yet, our findings showed that the mental health symptoms of victimized children worsened over time in healthier contexts—not only relative to their classmates but also compared to their own previous mental health.
Why Does the Safe Context Paradox Occur?
Several plausible explanations for the safe context paradox have emerged, and some have already been tested. One possibility is that in a low-victimization context, bullied students are more likely to develop a negative social self-concept due to comparisons with their peers. When surrounded by mostly non-victimized classmates, children might feel even more isolated and conclude, “It must be me.” This self-blaming attribution can amplify their distress and lead them to internalize the bullying experience as a personal failing, rather than attributing it to external hostility.
Another explanation relates to friendship dynamics. In a context where bullying is rare, victimized students may find it more difficult to connect with others. Research indicates that bullied children often seek out peers who share similar experiences for mutual understanding and support. However, in a low-victimization context, such connections are less likely to occur. Instead, these children are more prone to social avoidance, which compounds their sense of isolation.
Our findings underscore how important it is to view bullying in its broader social and psychological context. The safe context paradox challenges the assumption that reducing bullying automatically improves outcomes for all students. While lower rates of victimization are a positive development, they also create an environment where the few remaining victims may feel even more alienated and unsupported.
What Can We Learn From the Safe Context Paradox?
As researchers and educators, our primary goal should always be to reduce bullying and promote healthier environments. However, the safe context paradox reminds us that simply lowering the prevalence of victimization isn’t enough. A low-victimization environment, or one where victimization decreases over time, doesn’t necessarily translate to good news for everyone.
This insight has critical implications for how we approach bullying prevention. First, we need evidence-based interventions to address the cases that persist despite preventative efforts. Victimized children in safer contexts often require targeted support to help them cope with their experiences. Second, we should reconsider how we assess the quality of educational contexts. Traditionally, measures like “classroom climate” or “school climate” rely on average scores to evaluate the overall environment. But these averages may obscure the experiences of minority groups, such as the few remaining bullying victims.
Perhaps a truly “healthy context” isn’t one where bullying is eliminated entirely, but one where every child is treated with respect and dignity, regardless of the prevalence of victimization. This requires us to focus on the distribution of perceptions across students, not just the overall average. If we want to support all children, we must ensure that the voices of those most at risk—those suffering in silence—are heard and addressed.
As my research group continues to study the safe context paradox, we hope to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon and develop strategies to support victims more effectively. By addressing the unique challenges faced by children in low-victimization environments, we can ensure that no one is left behind in the fight against bullying.
Christina Salmivalli /University of Turku, Finland
Publications on the topic:
Huitsing, G., Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., & Salmivalli, C. (2012) “It must be me” or “It could be them?” The impact of the social network position of bullies and victims on victims’ adjustment. Social Networks,34, 379-386.
Garandeau, C., Lee, I., & Salmivalli, C. (2018). Decreases in the proportion of bullying victims in the classroom: Effects on the adjustment of remaining victims. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42, 64-72.
Huitsing, G., Lodder, G., Oldenburg, B., Schacter, H., Salmivalli, C., Juvonen, J., Veenstra, R. (2019). The healthy context paradox: Victims’ adjustment during an anti-bullying intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 2499-2509.
Pan, B., Tengfei, L., Linqin, J., Malamut, S., Zhang, W., & Salmivalli, C. (2021). Why does classroom-level victimization moderate the victimization-depression association? The “healthy context paradox” and two explanations. Child Development, 92,1836-1854.
Garandeau, C., & Salmivalli, C. (2019). Can healthier contexts be harmful? A new perspective on the plight of victims of bullying. Child Development Perspectives, 13, 147-152.
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Yanagida, T., Garandeau, C. F., Malamut, S.T., Veenstra, R., & Salmivalli, C. (2023). Is there really a healthy context paradox for victims of bullying? Longitudinal test of bidirectional within- and between-person effects of victimization with psychological problems. Development and Psychopathology.
Agyekum-Hene, R., Smith, P.K., Turunen, T., & Salmivalli, C. (2024). The healthy context paradox at a national-level: Is victimisation associated with worse adjustment in countries where the average level of victimization is lower? International Journal of Bullying Prevention.
Project PARTICIPATE aims to train a new generation of 10 innovative early-stage researchers (ESRs) in highly transferable, multidisciplinary research skills. The goal is to enhance their employability in both public and private sectors and to significantly contribute to the development of policies and practices focused on parent-centered cyberbullying prevention and intervention.
