Does bullying occur in preschool? A survey of French preschool workers’ perceptions and beliefs about bullying

Does bullying occur in preschool? A survey of French preschool workers’ perceptions and beliefs about bullying | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Does bullying occur in preschool? A survey of French preschool workers’ perceptions and beliefs about bullying Inès Martelli, Estelle Grand, Antoinette Dewandre, Marianne Habib, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5716629/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in International Journal of Bullying Prevention → Version 1 posted 13 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract School bullying constitutes a significant adverse childhood experience for both victims and perpetrators. Teachers and school staff play a pivotal role in identifying and preventing bullying. Although extensively studied among school-aged children, research on bullying in preschool settings remains scarce. This study used quant data to explore the perceptions and beliefs of French preschool staff (N = 191) regarding bullying, focusing on definitional aspects, observed bullying behaviors in preschool environments, the roles of school staff and parents, and beliefs about prevention. The findings reveal that French preschool staff's understanding of bullying definitions diverges somewhat from those commonly found in the scientific literature. Moreover, participants expressed hesitancy in applying the term "bullying" to describe aggressive interactions among preschool-aged children. The results further indicate that professional training for preschool staff could be enhanced to promote more effective interpersonal dynamics within teams. While participants emphasized the importance of implementing prevention programs in French preschools and actively engaging parents, they reported limited implementation of such initiatives. These findings align with existing literature but also highlight unique contextual factors shaped by French educational policies and anti-bullying legislation. Bullying preschool teacher beliefs early childhood perceptions prevention Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction School bullying is one of the major adverse childhood events that a child can experience (Finkelhor et al., 2015 ). Longitudinal studies have shown that school bullying can have short-, medium-, and long-term consequences for both the victims and perpetrators (Reijntjes et al., 2010 ; Kärnä et al., 2011 ). For the victims, it is a medium and long term risk factor for psychiatric disorders such as anxiety disorders or depression, low self-esteem and trust issues (Kärnä et al., 2011 ). The perpetrators are at risk of developing internalizing symptoms such as depression and psychosomatic issues (Wang et al., 2011 ), along with externalizing symptoms (Olweus & Limber, 2010a ). School bullying negatively impacts the academic performances of students and cultivates a negative view of the school environment (Laith & Vaillancourt, 2022 ). Preschool workers are part of the main actors engaged in children’s education at school, and are responsible for their emotional and physical security. Consequently, it is essential to gain insight into the perceptions and beliefs held by preschool workers regarding bullying. Definition and dynamics of bullying Bullying implies a series of verbal, psychological and/or physical aggressions, and its dynamics include different and sometimes interchangeable roles: the victims, the perpetrators, the bully-victims and the bystanders (Olweus 1993 ; Olweus, 2003 ; Potard & Henry, 2021 ; Vlachou et al., 2011 ). In accordance with the definition proposed by Olweus ( 1993 ), three elements are required to qualify an aggressive behavior as bullying. The first element is an imbalance of power between the victim and the aggressor, where the victim does not feel in capacity to effectively defend himself or herself (Olweus 1993 ). According to Volk and collaborators (2014), the notion of imbalance of power plays a pivotal role in differentiating bullying from other forms of proactive aggression. Power can rely on social, cognitive, material and/or physical components (Volk et al., 2014 ). From an evolutionary perspective, bullying can be envisioned as an exploration of dominant roles (i.e. power imbalances) within social groups during development (Skoglund, 2020 ). The second element is repetitiveness (Olweus 1993 ). Although bullying should be differentiated from “occasional non-serious negative actions that are directed against one student at one time and against another on a different occasion” (Olweus, 1993 ), repetitiveness should not be considered as an absolutely necessary criterion (Olweus, 2013 ). Indeed, a one-time event with a pronounced intensity can be experienced as extremely distressing by the victim and result in significant consequences, as can repeated events with a lesser perceived intensity (Volk et al., 2014 ). The third and last definitional element is intentionality, i.e. an intent by the bully to implement the aggressive behavior (Olweus, 2013 ). Intentionality differentiates bullying from involuntary incidents that could still be harmful (Andrews et al., 2023 ). It implies that the perpetrator has the capacity to cease their behavior if they decided to. However, the perpetrator may not be aware that their action constitutes “bullying”, or may not be fully conscious of the level of distress they are inflicting on the victim, or of the underlying motivations behind their behavior. Perpetrators' reported motives can vary, with “just for fun” being one of the most common reported motives (Volk et al. 2022 ). Furthermore, while bullies have in most cases a cognitive understanding that the exerted behavior will be perceived as unpleasant by the targeted person, they can lack empathy for the victim (Van Noorden et al. 2015 ). Finally, while bullying can involve complex voluntary strategies with increasing age, the presence of such strategic preparation is not necessary to establish intentionality. When it comes to operationalizing the construct in research settings, the issue of intentionality is often addressed through the measurement of repetitiveness, which, beyond a certain level, is considered a sufficient indicator of the intentional nature of the behavior. Prevalence and types of bullying among preschoolers Assessing bullying in preschool children is a complex process due to the restrictions underpinning the implementation of standard self-report questionnaires typically used in older age groups (Vlachou et al. 2011 ). Preschool teacher reports are generally considered as more valid; however teachers may not be fully aware of all instances of victimization (Monks et al., 2003 ). Despite these methodological challenges, findings from the limited number of studies available suggest that preschoolers can perpetuate both direct and indirect aggressive behaviors, including physical and verbal assaults, social exclusion and rumor spreading (Perren & Alsaker, 2006 ; Kovač & Cameron, 2021 ; Helgeland & Lund, 2017 ; Monks et al., 2003 ; Vlachou et al. 2011 ). Research also shows that bullying in early education settings must be considered in a developmental perspective (Andrews et al., 2023 ). Aggressive behaviors in younger children are usually direct, as they lack social sophistication and tend to respond to immediate problems. Moreover, victims in this age group are more likely to experience victimization over shorter periods than in older cohorts (Vlachou et al. 2011 ). The uncertainties associated with the evaluation of bullying along with the developmental characteristics of aggressive behavioral patterns found in younger age groups have led some researchers to question the relevance of applying the term “bullying” in preschool settings (Vlachou, 2011). Nonetheless, studies investigating peer victimization and aggressor vs. victim roles in early education settings have shown that some children are regularly victims of aggressive behaviors by their peers, and that some children regularly engage in aggressive behaviors, indicating that the relational patterns characterizing bullying are already operating during the preschool years (Perren & Alsaker, 2006 ). Taking into account a repetition threshold for aggression (target and/or perpetrator) of at least once a week, Perren and Alsaker ( 2006 ) found in a sample of Swiss kindergartners that 7% of children were designated as victims of bullying, 12% as “bullies”, and 7% as “bully-victims” by their teachers. The remaining 54% of children were considered to be non-involved. In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, 4–6 years old students reported whether their peers could be classified as aggressors, victims or defenders twice over a 4 month-interval. The percentages of the sample found to be in the same role at both time points was 15% for aggressors and 3% for victims (Monks et al., 2003 ). The importance of preschool workers beliefs regarding bullying and bullying prevention Preschool workers are frequently asked to provide insights on bullying through the use of standardized tools. Their beliefs, in turn, influence the prevalence data on preschool bullying (Camodeca et al., 2015 ; Vlachou et al., 2011 ), the teaching styles children benefit from, the way children perceive themselves, and the social dynamics between children during school time (Coplan et al., 2015 ; Sugawara & Cunningham, 1988 ; Hughes et al., 2001 ; Sakellariou & Rentzou, 2011 ). In particular, preschool workers' beliefs and knowledge about bullying influence the labeling of some behaviors as bullying, their ability to detect more insidious forms of bullying, and the extent to which prevention and intervention strategies are implemented within schools (De Luca et al., 2019 ; Iraklis, 2020 ; Kovač & Cameron, 2021 ; Vlachou et al., 2011 ; Williford, 2015 ). Some studies have explored preschool workers’ beliefs regarding the age at which bullying can occur (Campbell & Morgan, 2017 ; Kirves & Sajaniemi, 2012 ; Kovač & Cameron, 2021 ). Kirves and Sajaniemi ( 2012 ) interviewed Finnish preschool workers and found that the term was commonplace among the day care staff, who could describe several situations that they classified as bullying. A cross national study asked 50 childcare workers from several countries who volunteered to participate to evaluate when bullying starts, and a mean age of 3.7 was reported (Campbell & Morgan, 2017 ). Finally, in a study conducted in Norway, Kovač and Cameron ( 2021 ) asked 694 preschool workers how old a child must be to be able to bully others. Participants were required to choose only one option among integers ranging from 1 to 6 years. Approximately 90% chose one of the first three years of age, while less than 3% indicated that a child must be 5 years old or older. Hence, based on this limited number of findings, preschool workers appear to generally agree on the fact that bullying can occur during the preschool years. Levels of knowledge of the definitional components of bullying have been found to vary among preschool workers (Boulton, 1997 ; Ey & Campbell, 2022 ; Garner et al. 2017 ; Kovač & Cameron, 2021 ). In an early study, Boulton ( 1997 ) asked preschool teachers to indicate their agreement with definitions of school bullying that included different types of behaviors (Boulton, 1997 ). Only about one in four of them included name-calling, spreading degrading gossip, intimidation by staring and taking other people’s belongings in their conceptualization of bullying (Boulton, 1997 ), thereby excluding relational forms of aggression that are in reality part of the aggressive behaviors that can constitute bullying. A study conducted in Australia revealed that only 17,7% of preschool teachers included the three essential characteristics outlined by Olweus ( 2013 ) in their spontaneous definition of “bullying” (Ey & Campbell, 2022 ). Nonetheless, all the participants recognized that bullying and fighting were different, with 80% of them identifying constant repetition, 67% intent to harm and 65% power imbalance as important differences. Regarding the beliefs of preschool workers on bullying prevention, Cameron and Kovač ( 2017 ) analyzed survey data collected in a sample of Norwegian preschool workers and found that 77% of them believed that they had the individual competence required to prevent and deal with bullying. Humphrey ( 2013 ) explored the beliefs of Minnesota preschool teachers regarding prevention. The qualitative interviews analyzed yielded several main themes, with preschool teachers globally recommending three levels of bullying prevention: (i) at the classroom level with a need of identifying bullying behaviors and providing an immediate response; (ii) at the school level with the will to create school policies on the prevention of bullying and (iii) at the community level with the objective to create a conscious community surrounding the children on this topic (Humphrey, 2013 ). Overall, these findings, based on research conducted in a limited number of countries, indicate that preschool workers consider that bullying can occur from an early age, face challenges in providing a comprehensive definition of bullying, and hold positive beliefs about the importance of implementing prevention strategies at the preschool level. Several of these studies were conducted in Northern European countries, where strong policies against bullying have been implemented for several years, including preventive approaches (Sainio et al., 2019 ). In France, no preventive policy has been deployed until 2021, and the recent national program does not include action at the preschool level. Thus, French preschool workers may have a more limited understanding and knowledge of bullying than preschoolers in Northern European countries. Furthermore, it should be noted that the French language has a unique word, harcèlement , that is used both to describe aggressive behaviors in a variety of settings, including sexual and verbal intimidations among adults, and in the legal context. Bullying is legally defined in France by various texts, including the Penal Code, the Employment Code and a recent specific law on school bullying (Légifrance, 2008 ; Légifrance, 2022 ; Légifrance, 2024 ; Service Public, 2024 ). In particular, if the bully is over thirteen years old, they are liable to imprisonment and fines. This situation is different from many other countries, including the United States or the United Kingdom, where the phenomenon of harassment is legally defined, while school bullying is regulated by governmental or federal directives (Gov.uk, n.d; StopBullying.gov, n.d). The stronger link that exists in France between bullying incidents and the possibility of legal prosecution could lead to greater reluctance among professionals in France to label young children's behavior as bullying. The current study In light of the pivotal role that educators play in the prevention of bullying, the current study aimed at exploring for the first time, the beliefs and perceptions of French preschool workers regarding preschool bullying and its prevention. Questionnaire data were collected from three professional populations: (1) teacher staff, including teachers and preschool directors; (2) extracurricular staff, including after-school facilitators, extracurricular directors and accompanying persons for students with disabilities and (3) preschool assistants. The following questions were addressed in this study: (1) Do the French preschool workers endorse the key definitional aspects of the scientific definition of bullying? ; (2) Have they identified aggressive behaviors among the students that could constitute bullying, and do they consider that bullying exists in preschool? (3) What are their concerns regarding the positioning of school staff and parents in relation to bullying? ; (4) What are their beliefs concerning the prevention of bullying? Since our professional groups differed in their professional background and roles, we also examined whether answers differed between our two main groups, namely the teacher staff (including preschool teachers and preschool directors) vs. the extracurricular staff. Methods Participants This study was conducted in 16 preschools located in the urban unit of Paris, within two neighboring districts (Saint-Ouen and the 18th district of Paris). All of the preschools belonged to the French Priority Education Network ( Réseau d’Éducation Prioritaire ), which identifies socio-economic deprived areas requiring increased educational investment. Data collection was organized in the context of a pilot study supporting the cultural adaptation of the Danish bullying prevention program Fri for Mobberi (Free of bullying) (The Mary Foundation & Save the Children Denmark, 2017). Data collection took place prior to the initiation of the program training and implementation. In total, 191 preschool workers aged from less than 20 years old (1.6%), to more than 50 years old (22.5%) participated in the current study (see Supplementary Table 1 for a more complete description of the participants’ demographics): 104 (54%) teacher staff (including 20 school directors), 71 (31.2%) extracurricular staff (including 6 facilitators with leadership positions and 3 accompanying persons for students with disabilities), and 16 (8.3%) preschool assistants. Among the 191 participants, 34 were male. Thirteen (6.8%) had less than one year of professional experience, 40 (20.9%) between one and five years, 42 (22%) between five and ten years, 96 (50%) more than ten years. The tables for the distribution of age, gender and years of experience by group are provided in the Supplementary material (see Supplementary Tables 1, 2 and 3 for more information). Data collection and survey instrument Teams of each school were simultaneously met by a study investigator to collect survey data (12 meetings). Meetings included between 15 and 25 participants, with teams from smaller schools combined for four of these sessions. The survey was provided in English by the Danish Mary Foundation, which supports the deployment of Fri for Mobberi , and was used in the original pilot study of the program in Denmark (Kamstrup Knudsen et al., 2008 ). It includes both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The English version was translated in French and back-translated by two independent translators. During the meeting, each participant completed the survey which included 4 key topics: definition of bullying (3 questions), description of bullying phenomena in preschool (3 questions), positioning of staff and parents (3 questions), and bullying prevention (2 questions; see Supplementary material “Questionnaire for preschool staff” for the complete list of the items). After completing the section of the survey devoted to the description of bullying phenomena in preschool, the teams were invited to orally discuss their experiences of preschool bullying. Oral exchanges were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. The procedure was approved by the Paris-Lumières ethics committee of the UFR SPSE, Psychological and Educational Sciences (reference number: 04-n°1). Analysis Multiple-choice data were first analyzed descriptively, followed by an inferential analysis to compare the percentage of answers in our two main groups of participants i.e. the teacher staff vs extracurricular staff groups using a Chi-Square test on the Jamovi software (2024). Open-ended questions and oral exchanges were analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis of the data was carried out using the Framework Method (Gale et al. 2013 ). Each open-ended question was analyzed separately. Analysis began with two members of the research team (IM and TV) independently reading and becoming familiar with the answers and coding the data. Preliminary codes were identified inductively through this process and an initial coding framework was developed. As new codes were identified, the analytical framework was iteratively refined until the team was confident that all data had been accounted for. A matrix framework was created in Excel to organize and chart the coded verbatim data. This framework allowed the research team to explore the data, produce summaries and generate themes and subthemes. One question specifically addressed the topic of bullying definition. Through the analysis of respondent’s answers, we identified the elements of repetition, exclusion from a group, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as the key elements mentioned in this survey. In the first stage, the frequency of mentions for each definitional element was recorded. In a second stage, we categorized and numbered more complex responses that combined multiple definitional elements in a single answer, including two, three, or four definitional elements. Answers containing two components included combinations such as physical aggression and verbal aggression; physical aggression and repetition; verbal aggression and repetition; physical aggression and exclusion from the group; verbal aggression and exclusion from the group; or exclusion from the group and repetition. Answers containing three components combined physical aggression, verbal aggression, and repetition. Finally, answers containing four components combined physical aggression, verbal aggression, exclusion from the group, and repetition. Results 1. Definition of bullying First, participants were asked ‘ Do you believe there is a difference between teasing and bullying?’ . Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. Participants were then given the possibility to openly comment their answers. Four themes were extracted from their written comments: “repetition as an element of difference between bullying and teasing” (34.5% (66) of the participants), “magnitude of the problem as an element of difference” (8.4% (16)), “duration of the issue as an element of difference” (1% (2)) and “no difference between bullying and teasing” (5.8% (11)). 5.8% (12) of the participants gave an off-topic answer, 48.7% (93) of the participants did not answer the question, and 3.7% (7) of the answers were counted twice because they belonged to two different categories. Second, participants were asked to select answers among proposals to complete the sentence ‘ I believe bullying is when…’ . Percentages for each answer in the whole sample are represented in Figure 1, and show that a majority of the respondents estimated that bullying is when “a child is often: teased by other children (83%); “ hit, pushed, bitten or the like (78%); called nasty names by other children (77%) ignored or excluded in other ways (77%). Third, participants were asked: “ Describe in your own words what you interpret as bullying. Just write what immediately comes to mind ”. Four themes were extracted through qualitative analysis of written answers: “repetition of an aggression”, “verbal aggressions”, “physical aggressions” and “exclusion from the group of children”. 46% (88) of the participants included repetitiveness of aggression; 48.2% (92) of the participants included verbal aggressions; 31.4% (60) included physical aggressions and finally 22% (42) included exclusion from the group of children in their description of bullying. 7.3% (14) of the answers were off-topic. In a second categorization, we numbered the more complex answers: 14.7% (28) of the participants included two components in their answers; 14.7% (28) of the participants included three components in their answers and 2% (4) participants included four components in their answers. 6.8% (13) of the participants did not answer or did not provide a precise enough answer for us to include their response in our analysis. 2. Description of bullying and exclusion phenomena among preschool students First, participants were asked ‘ Do some of the children in your preschool intimidate each other?’ . Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. 57.3% of the teacher staff and 42.4% of the extracurricular staff think that it is the case sometimes; while a minority of the teacher staff (3.9%) and of the extracurricular staff (10.6%) think it is often the case. Second, participants were asked ‘Do all of the children in your preschool have playmates, or is anyone left out?’. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. 44.4% of the extracurricular staff think that all of the children have someone to play with, while it is the case only for 17.5% of the teacher staff. 62.1% of the teacher staff think that certain children occasionally do not have someone to play with, while 44.4% of the extracurricular staff think the same idea. Third, participants answered the open question “ In what ways do the children usually intimidate each other? Describe in your own words”. 47.1% (90) of the participants mentioned elements of verbal aggression. More specifically, 17.8% (34) reported verbal mockeries related to clothing, physical appearance, etc.; 5.8% (11) mentioned threats; 3.1% (6) mentioned shouting / yelling and 1% (2) mentioned insults. 27.2% (52) of the participants indicated elements of physical aggression. Within this category, 4.1% of the participants (8) mentioned hitting; 2.6% (5) nudging; 2.6% (5) taking an aggressive / intimidating physical stance; 1.2% (3) verbally threatening to hit; one participant mentioned pulling hair; one participant mentioned playing violent games ; and one participant mentioned gestures such as showing the middle finger. Finally, 23% (44) of the participants reported elements of relational aggression, such as social exclusion and blackmailing according to 8.4% (16) of the participants; exclusion from peer activities / rejection of classmates according to 7.3% (14) of the participants; leading activities in a dominant manner according to 5.2% (10) of the participants; and forcing classmates to do something against their will according to one participant. 26.2% (50) of the participants did not answer this question. Finally, participants were asked to discuss whether they had witnessed bullying in preschool. Over the course of the 12 meetings, 4 groups reported that they had never observed bullying in their preschool setting. 7 groups expanded on this claim, arguing that the term "bullying" is inadequate to describe aggressive behaviors during the preschool years for several reasons: (1) both targets and perpetrators of aggressive behaviors were not consistent over time (3/7), (2) preschool children do not fully understand the consequences of their actions and are in the process of learning to coexist (2/7), and (3) aggressive behaviors in preschool are not typically supported by groups of children targeting a single individual (1/7). 2 groups felt that the term "bullying" is too strong for this age group, while 1 group stated that what is observed in preschool are merely the premises of bullying. Only 1 of the 12 groups was ambivalent, as a portion of its members believed that bullying could indeed occur in preschool. 3. Positioning of staff and parents First, participants were asked ‘In your experience, does bullying – or a bad tone – exist among staff members at your preschool?’ . Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (59.6.7% ) and of the extracurricular staff (64%) indicated that they do not perceive the presence of bullying or a bad tone among staff members at their respective preschool. Second, participants were asked ‘Do you feel that all members of staff speak to the children in an appropriate manner?’ . Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (58.2%) and of the extracurricular staff (63.5%) indicate that the members of the staff typically interact with the children in an appropriate manner. Third, participants were asked ‘How would you rate your collaboration with parents?’ . Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (77.3%) and of the extracurricular staff (72.6%) would rate their collaboration with parents positively. 4. Bullying prevention First, when asked ‘Has your preschool focused on bullying in the past?’, 49.7% (95) of the participants answered “ no ”, “ yes, in connection with one or more specific incidents ”: 38,7% (74), “ yes, we have discussed bullying at staff meetings ”: 1% (2), “ yes, we have raised bullying at meetings with the parents ”: 0.5% (1). 10.5% (20) of the participants did not answer this question. Second, participants were asked ‘Are there any areas that you feel you and your colleagues could improve, in respect of how you deal with conflict and teasing among the children?’ . Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (57%) and of the extracurricular staff (60%) answered ‘ yes ’. In this question, an open-ended part was also completed by the participants. 23% (44) of the participants considered that communication, both oral (20.9%) and visual (2.1%), could be improved, as well as the degree of prevention of bullying according to 4.7% (9) of the participants; the access to training for the school personnel according to 3.7% (7) of the participants; conflict-management according to 3.1% (6) of the participants. 2.6% (5) of the participants mentioned other elements such as the importance of creating a safe school climate (1) and the need to improve how adults address and respond to young children's emotions (4). 58% (111) of the participants did not answer this question, and 5.2% (10) of the participants gave an off-topic answer. Third, participants were asked to select answers among proposals to respond to the question ‘ Who is responsible for any bullying that takes place among the children? ’ . Percentages for each answer in the whole sample are represented in the figure below (see Figure 2). “The children’s group” (80%) and “the individual child” (52%) were the two most frequent answers. Fourth, participants were asked ‘Do you believe bullying can be prevented?’. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (95%) and of the extracurricular staff (93.9%) hold positive thoughts on the fact that bullying can be prevented. Fifth, participants answered the open question “ What do you believe could be done to prevent bullying? Just write what immediately comes to mind”. 27.7% (53) of the participants considered that bullying can be prevented by providing children with information on the topic; 12% (23) by giving children the opportunity to talk about the difficulties they face at school due to bullying; 11% (21) by the use of various tools, such as books on the topic of bullying, role-plays in class, short videos followed by discussions, games or activities related to bullying; 11% (21) suggested being vigilant in observing interactions between children and intervening promptly when bullying occurs; 8.9% (17) of the participants emphasized collaboration with parents; 6.8% (13) stressed the need for a professional team trained in addressing bullying to support children; 6.3% (12) highlighted the importance of fostering empathy within the children's group; 5.2% (10) pointed to strengthening group cohesion among children; and 3.1% (6) believed bullying could be prevented through training for school professionals. 4.7% (9) of the participants gave off-topic answers, and 21.5% (41) participants did not answer this question. Sixth, participants were asked ‘Do you believe that parents can take steps to prevent bullying?’. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the preschool teachers (76.8%) and of the extracurricular staff (69.7%) indicate that they surely believe that parents can take steps to prevent bullying. Finally, participants answered the open-ended question “ What do you think will be the biggest challenge to working with Free of Bullying?”. In the whole sample, 13.6% (26) of the participants identified continuous engagement in a prevention program as the biggest challenge. This includes keeping all school staff and parents engaged over time (7.8% or 15 participants ), motivating children to apply their learnings about bullying (1.6% 3)), harmonizing rules and information among teachers to create continuity within the school (1% (2)). The second major challenge, highlighted by 7.4% (14) of participants was the adaptation of messages around bullying and its consequences for young children. The third challenge identified by 5.2% (10) of participants involved finding the time to regularly propose prevention activities. 4.2% (8) identified communication as a main challenge, and more precisely the need for improved communication among adults surrounding the children (school staff and parents) and conveying clear information about bullying to the children.. Another 4.2% (8) identified the organization of program deployment as a main challenge, particularly in terms of scheduling interventions, training all school staff members, the appropriation of the tools by the professional team and the identification of children’s needs. Finally, 3.7% (7) of participants considered creating a peaceful school climate as the main challenge of this implementation, particularly enabling a safe space based on dialogue and communication where children feel secure enough to discuss their problems. 3.7% (7) of the participants gave off-topic answers, and 54% (103) of the participants did not answer the question. Discussion This study explored the perceptions and beliefs of French preschool workers regarding the existence and prevention of bullying in preschool settings, focusing on (1) the definition of bullying, (2) the bullying behaviors observed in the preschool setting, (3) the positioning of school staff and parents, (4) workers’ beliefs concerning bullying prevention. The ability of preschool workers to detect bullying among preschoolers depends on their capacity to endorse its key definitional components. In this sample, 33.1% of the respondents did not differentiate bullying from teasing, and more than 30% of respondents considered that a child being occasionally teased or called nasty names could represent a case of bullying. When asked to describe what they interpret as bullying, 48.2% of the participants were able to cite repetitiveness of aggressive behaviors as a definitional feature, but none of them mentioned an imbalance of power or intentionality. These findings suggest that French preschool workers are not familiar with two of the criteria of the definition of bullying, and that between 30% and 52.8% of our participants may not know or underestimate the repetitiveness criteria. In line with previous studies conducted in other countries (Perren & Alsaker, 2006 ; Boulton, 1997 ; Kovač & Cameron, 2021 ; Helgeland & Lund, 2017 ; Monks et al., 2003 ; Vlachou et al. 2011 ), preschool workers reported various forms of verbal, physical and relational aggressions among preschoolers. Verbal aggressions were the most commonly reported. Nonetheless, only 6.6% of the respondents considered that children often intimidate each other, suggesting that these aggressive behaviors were only occasionally observed. Regular exclusion from games of certain children was observed by 14.4% of the respondents, showing that social exclusion dynamics already exist among preschoolers. Interestingly, perceptions of teacher vs. extracurricular staff significantly differed, as teacher staff most often reported social exclusion dynamics. Different hypotheses could explain this perceptive gap: (1) behaviors of children may differ during different day times and under different levels of supervision; (2) the teacher group may have a more accurate perception of child relationships as they spend more time with them; (3) the extracurricular staff may implement games which are proposed to the whole group of children, which may leave out the possibility of spontaneous social exclusion by preschoolers ; (4) the two professional groups may differ in their training or observational skills. Importantly, when given the possibility to comment on their perceptions of preschool bullying, 11 of the 12 groups considered that the term of bullying was not appropriate in preschool, either because they had never observed it, or because it was too strong for the preschool years. This finding differs from previous studies conducted in Northern European countries (Campbell & Morgan, 2017 ; Kirves and Sajaniemi, 2012 ; Kovač and Cameron, 2021 ), where an agreement regarding the existence of preschool bullying was found. This discrepancy could be explained by different hypotheses. First, as France has been lacking behind for several years in the domain of bullying prevention, French professionals may have a more limited knowledge and awareness of bullying. In line with this hypothesis, one group considered that the term bullying is not applicable in preschool as children do not fully understand the consequences of their actions and are in the process of learning to coexist (2/7), and another because aggressive behaviors in preschool are not typically supported by groups of children targeting a single individual, while these two criteria are not part of the definition of bullying. Another explanation for the reluctance of French preschool workers to apply the term of bullying in preschool may reside in the difference in terminology found in France when compared to other countries. Indeed, harcèlement in France is legally defined and may lead to serious consequences, such as legal prosecutions. Finally, three groups also considered that bullying could not be applied in preschool, as targets and perpetrators are not consistent over time, which is in line with the view of several researchers who consider that the imbalance of power and repetition may not be sufficiently stable to apply the term bullying during the preschool years (Monks et al. 2002 , 2003 ). Analyses of items devoted to the positioning of school staff showed that the majority of our respondents considered that professionals spoke in an appropriate manner to other staff members and students. Nonetheless, 17.7% of these respondents reported bullying or at least a bad tone among staff members on an occasional or frequent basis, while 19.5% considered that some or several staff members frequently do not speak to children in an appropriate manner. Scientific literature underscores the importance of fostering a positive school climate for bullying prevention, particularly through supportive teacher attitudes: such a climate is associated with greater student willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors and to prevent bullying and violent threats (Eliot et al., 2010 ; Gendron et al., 2011 ). Hence, our findings suggest that professional training of preschool workers could be extended to improve social skills and relationship dynamics within the adult group. Concerning the beliefs of the participants on the quality of their collaboration with parents, a large majority rated it in a positive way, and preschool workers reported that they believed that parents can take steps to prevent bullying. This belief is shared by Norwegian preschool workers and parents, although in Norway, the quality of this collaboration is rated as higher by the parents rather than by the preschool workers (Cameron & Kovač, 2017 ). Previous research has pointed out the importance of collaboration between preschool workers and parents. Such as Ma and collaborators (2016), who showed that a strong involvement of parents in the early education of their children, especially in the connection with the school and the preschool, is positively correlated to learning outcomes. Regarding the prevention of bullying, our study reveals that most preschool workers have not previously focused on this issue. Analyzing the qualitative data, we found that French preschool workers tend to adopt reactive rather than preventive approaches to bullying. This finding aligns with existing international research, which indicates that preschool workers typically respond to bullying situations as they arise and only discuss the issue with parents when a child is directly involved (Cameron & Kovač, 2017 ). Among the participants, only 42% cited the teachers as one of the responsibles of bullying when it takes place between children. Furthermore, while a strong majority of participants believe that bullying can be prevented, nearly 3% feel it cannot be prevented, about 5% are uncertain, and approximately 37% think it is only probably preventable. These findings possibly reflect the lack of coherent preventive policy currently deployed in the French preschool settings, and indicate a lack of training of professionals in bullying prevention. The doubts that some professionals hold about the possibility of bullying prevention and the apparent low level of responsibility felt by the preschool workers may also hamper the dissemination of preventive programs. Nonetheless, 56% of the respondents considered that they could improve their management of children's aggressive behaviors, showing to the least that a majority of professionals may be open to the introduction of new practices. To prevent bullying, our sample believed in majority that more information should be shared to preschoolers on this topic. Only 11% of respondents cited activities such as role-play, short videos followed by discussion, games or activities typically found in prevention programs as possible means of reducing bullying. When asked to think of the biggest challenge they may face when working with a prevention program, 13.6% of participants considered that remaining continuously engaged in such a program would be a challenge, which is indeed an important question to address when disseminating prevention programs to achieve sustainability (Moore et al. 2017 ). Strengths and limitations This study presents several strengths and limitations that should be considered. Among its strengths, the sample included several schools, and two groups of workers (teacher staff and extracurricular staff) were largely represented, allowing us to compare their perceptions and beliefs. The schools were not selected on a voluntary basis, ensuring that the participants are not biased in favor of bullying prevention compared to other school staff. The methodological choice of using both quantitative and qualitative analyses allowed us to capture tendencies in perceptions and beliefs, while exploring important nuances, especially in the definitional aspects of the concept of bullying. This study also does have certain limitations. A key limitation is the uneven distribution of participants across groups, especially the lower number of preschool assistants, which was insufficient to include this group in our comparative analysis. Gaining a deeper understanding of preschool assistants’ beliefs would have been interesting, particularly in order to compare it with teachers' perspectives, given the differences in their training, roles in the classroom, and relationships with children. Another methodological limitation of this study is the potential risk of social desirability bias in participants’ responses, as the investigators were also investigating the pilot phase of the Free of bullying program. Utilizing multiple data collection methods, as was done here, is a useful first step in addressing this issue. However, we could have gone further by statistically measuring the social desirability bias (Hart et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, regarding the relationship between preschool workers and parents, we did not measure parents’ beliefs. Collecting this data would have been valuable to determine whether the beliefs of preschool workers align with those of parents and to gain a more accurate understanding of their relationship. Finally, a key limitation of our study is that we did not gather preschool workers’ beliefs regarding the dynamics between victim and perpetrator roles. Assessing this topic would have helped determine whether preschool workers believe the roles of victims and perpetrators are interchangeable in preschool settings. Conclusions and orientations for further research This study is the first conducted in France on this topic, providing valuable new data on the perceptions and beliefs of preschool workers. Understanding their beliefs is essential for improving bullying prevention programs in preschool settings and ensuring strong engagement from preschool staff in preventive initiatives. Although French preschool workers were reluctant to use the term “bullying” to describe interactions among young children, they did observe physical, verbal, and relational aggressions, underscoring the need for preventive programs to address these behaviors. Such forms of aggression are also reported among preschool staff, further highlighting the importance of fostering a positive, peaceful climate for both children and adults. Participants appeared to have not focused on bullying prevention in the past, and to be aware that progress could be made in their schools regarding this issue. Nonetheless, some were also hesitant about the possibility of preventing bullying, and a majority appeared to underestimate the responsibility of adult professionals in addressing this issue. For future research on this topic, scholars examining preschool workers’ beliefs should aim to address the methodological gaps in this study, ensuring that all relevant missing data—outlined here—are collected. As for bullying prevention in French preschools, our findings confirm that this issue has been largely overlooked and that preschool staff generally hold a positive view on the feasibility of prevention. This positions them, alongside parents, as essential allies in efforts to prevent bullying at this early stage. Declarations Ethics, consent to participate and/or to publish The procedure was approved by the Paris-Lumières ethics committee of the UFR SPSE, Psychological and Educational Sciences (reference number: 04-n°1). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Funding declaration Partial financial support was received from the French Regional Health Agency (Agence Régionale de Santé, ARS). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Author Contribution IM, TV wrote the main manuscript and text.IM and EG analyzed the quantitative data, with a review of TV and MH.IM, TV and EG analyzed the qualitative data, with a review of MH and AD.IM and TV prepared table 1.IM prepared figures 1 and 2. MH and AD conducted a thorough rereading of the manuscript.All authors reviewed the manuscript. Data Availability The authors will provide the dataset containing questionnaire responses for the entire sample upon request. However, the transcribed data from the focus groups cannot be shared due to confidentiality agreements outlined in the consent forms. References Alsaker, F. D., & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2010). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully–victims, and bullies in kindergarten. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of school bullying. An international perspective (pp. 87–99). New York, NY: Routledge Alsaker, F. D., & Valkanover, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Junoven & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 175–195). New York: Guilford. Andrews, N. C. Z., Cillessen, A. H. N., Craig, W., Dane, A. V., & Volk, A. A. (2023). Bullying and the Abuse of Power. International Journal of Bullying Prevention , 5 (3), 261‑270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00170-0 Baiden, P., LaBrenz, C. A., Okine, L., Thrasher, S., & Asiedua-Baiden, G. (2020). The toxic duo : Bullying involvement and adverse childhood experiences as factors associated with school disengagement among children. Children and Youth Services Review , 119 , 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105383 Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying : Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 67 (2), 223‑233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01239.x Cameron, D. L., & Kovač, V. B. (2017). Parents and preschool workers’ perceptions of competence, collaboration, and strategies for addressing bullying in early childhood. Child Care in Practice , 23 (2), 126‑140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2016.1259156 Camodeca, M., Caravita, S. C. S., & Coppola, G. (2015). Bullying in preschool : The associations between participant roles, social competence, and social preference. Aggressive Behavior , 41 (4), 310‑321. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21541 Campbell, M., & Morgan, N. (2017). Adults’ perceptions of bullying in early childhood. In P. T. Slee, G. Skrzypiec, & C. Cefai (Éds.), Child And Adolescent Wellbeing And Violence Prevention In Schools (1 re éd., p. 101‑108). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102047-10 Chester, K. L., Callaghan, M., Cosma, A., Donnelly, P., Craig, W., Walsh, S., & Molcho, M. (2015). Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 to 2010. The European Journal of Public Health , 25 (suppl 2), 61‑64. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv029 Coplan, R. J., Bullock, A., Archbell, K. A., & Bosacki, S. (2015). Preschool teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and emotional reactions to young children’s peer group behaviors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 30 , 117‑127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.005 De Luca, L., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2019). The Teacher’s Role in Preventing Bullying. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 1830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01830 Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance (DEPP). (2024). Premiers résultats statistiques de l’Enquête harcèlement 2023. https://www.education.gouv.fr/premiers-resultats-statistiques-de-l-enquete-harcelement-2023-380517 Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology , 48 (6), 533‑553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001 Ey, L., & Campbell, M. (2022). Australian Early Childhood Teachers’ Understanding of Bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 (15‑16), NP13766‑NP13790. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211006355 Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. (2015). A revised inventory of Adverse Childhood Experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect , 48 , 13‑21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.011 Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., & Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 13 (1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 Garner, P. W., Parker, T., & Dortch, M. K. (2017). Concordance in peer victimization-related beliefs across parents and in-service and preservice early childhood teachers. Early Child Development and Care , 187 (11), 1732‑1744. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1186017 Gendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2011). An Analysis of Bullying Among Students Within Schools : Estimating the Effects of Individual Normative Beliefs, Self-Esteem, and School Climate. Journal of School Violence , 10 (2), 150‑164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.539166 Gov.uk. (n.d.). Bullying at school . Schools and education. Retrieved October, 15, 2024 fromhttps://www.gov.uk/bullying-at-school Graham, S. (2011). Bullying: A module for teachers. American Psychological Association . Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16). Sage Open , 5 (4), 2158244015621113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113 Hawley, P. H. (1999). The Ontogenesis of Social Dominance : A Strategy-Based Evolutionary Perspective. Developmental Review , 19 (1), 97‑132. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0470 Helgeland, A., & Lund, I. (2017). Children’s Voices on Bullying in Kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal , 45 (1), 133‑141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0784-z Hughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further Support for the Developmental Significance of the Quality of the Teacher–Student Relationship. Journal of School Psychology , 39 (4), 289‑301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7 Humphrey, L. (2013). Preschool Bullying: Does it Exist, What Does it Look Like, and What Can be Done? Social Work Master’s Clinical Research Papers . Ilola, A., Lempinen, L., Huttunen, J., Ristkari, T., & Sourander, A. (2016). Bullying and victimisation are common in four‐year‐old children and are associated with somatic symptoms and conduct and peer problems. Acta Paediatrica , 105 (5), 522‑528. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13327 Iraklis, G. (2020). Early childhood educators’ experiences of bullying episodes : A qualitative approach. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 28 (6), 774‑788. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836581 Kamstrup Knudsen, R., Erck, J., Lindberg, S. & Kampmann J. (2008). 3rd report: Views of Bullying as an Everyday Phenomenon in Early School Years. Centre for Childhood and Youth Research (CEBUF), Roskilde University. https://www.freeofbullying.com/scholarly-sources/ Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). A Large‐Scale Evaluation of the KiVa Antibullying Program : Grades 4–6. Child Development , 82 (1), 311‑330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x Kirves, L., & Sajaniemi, N. (2012). Bullying in early educational settings. Early Child Development and Care , 182 (3‑4), 383‑400.https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.646724 Kovač, V. B., & Cameron, D. L. (2021). Are We Talking about the Same Thing? A Survey of Preschool Workers’ Attitudes and Beliefs about Bullying. Child Care in Practice , 30 (2), 141‑155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2021.1951167 Laith, R., & Vaillancourt, T. (2022). The temporal sequence of bullying victimization, academic achievement, and school attendance : A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 64 , 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101722 Lee, S. (2020). Kindergarten Teachers’ Perspectives on Young Children’s Bullying Roles in Relation to Dominance and Peer Relationships : A Short-Term Longitudinal Approach in South Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (5), 1734. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051734 L’éducation prioritaire . (s. d.). Ministère de L’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse. https://www.education.gouv.fr/l-education-prioritaire-3140 Légifrance. (2024). Section 5 : Du harcèlement moral (Articles 222-33-2 à 222-33-2-3). Code pénal. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000047052746 Légifrance. (2008). Chapitre II : Harcèlement moral. (Articles L1152-1 à L1152-6) . Code du travail. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006177845/2008-05-13/ Légifrance. (2022). LOI n° 2022-299 du 2 mars 2022 visant à combattre le harcèlement scolaire (1). Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFSCTA000045287660 Ma, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., & Yuan, J. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Learning Outcomes and Parental Involvement During Early Childhood Education and Early Elementary Education. Educational Psychology Review , 28 (4), 771‑801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1 Monks, C., Ortega Ruiz, R., & Torrado Val, E. (2002). Unjustified aggression in preschool. Aggressive Behavior , 28 (6), 458‑476. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10032 Monks, C. P., & Coyne, I. (Éds.). (2011). Bullying in Different Contexts (1 re éd.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921018 Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, Victims, and Defenders in Preschool : Peer, Self-, and Teacher Reports. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 49 (4), 453‑469. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0024 Moore, J. E., Mascarenhas, A., Bain, J., & Straus, S. E. (2017). Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation Science , 12 (1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0637-1 Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do . Wiley-Blackwell. Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership , 60 (6), 12-27. Olweus, D. (2013). School Bullying : Development and Some Important Challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 9 (1), 751‑780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010a). Bullying in school : Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 80 (1), 124‑134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010b). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (eds.), The Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective (p. 27). New York: Routledge. Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully‐victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 47 (1), 45‑57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x Potard, C., & Henry, A. (2021). Émotions et apprentissages. In Émotions et apprentissages (p. 321‑353). Dunod.https://doi.org/10.3917/dunod.gobin.2021.01.0321 Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children : A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect , 34 (4), 244‑252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009 Sainio, M., Herkama, S., Kontio, M., & Salmivalli, C. (2019). KiVa anti-bullying programme. In P. K. Smith (Éd.), Making an Impact on School Bullying (1 re éd., p. 45‑66). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351201957-3 Sakellariou, M., & Rentzou, K. (2011). Cypriot pre-service kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about and practices of developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care , 181 (10), 1381‑1396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.531132 Saracho, O. N. (2017). Bullying Prevention Strategies in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Education Journal , 45 (4), 453‑460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0793-y Service Public. (2024). Harcèlement moral. Fiches pratiques par thèmes. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2354 Skoglund, R.I. (2020). Beyond Bullying: Understanding Children’s Exploration of Inclusion and Exclusion Processes in Kindergarten. In: Hedegaard, M., Eriksen Ødegaard, E. (eds) Children’s Exploration and Cultural Formation. International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development , vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36271-3_3 Smith, P. K. (Éd.). (1999). The nature of school bullying : A cross-national perspective . Routledge. Stamatis, P. J., & Nikolaou, E. N. (2018). Violent Communication and Bullying in Early Childhood Education . Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. StopBullying.gov. (n.d.). Laws, Policies and Regulations . Laws and Policies. Retrieved October, 15, 2024, from https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws Sugawara, A., & Cunningham, B. (1988). Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Children’s Problem Behaviors. The Journal of Educational Research , 82 (1), 34‑39.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885862 The jamovi project (2024). jamovi (Version 2.) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org The Mary Foundation & Save the Children Denmark (2017). Free of bullying and children's socio-emotional skills. Tordjman, S. (2022). Harcèlement scolaire et violence groupale : Comment occuper une place dans le groupe par l’exclusion. L’Encéphale , 48 , S19‑S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2022.08.002 Van Noorden, T. H. J., Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2015). Empathy and Involvement in Bullying in Children and Adolescents : A Systematic Review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44 (3), 637‑657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0135-6 Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., & Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/Victim Problems Among Preschool Children : A Review of Current Research Evidence. Educational Psychology Review , 23 (3), 329‑358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9153-z Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Al-Jbouri, E. (2022). Is Adolescent Bullying an Evolutionary Adaptation? A 10-Year Review. Educational Psychology Review , 34 (4), 2351‑2378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09703-3 Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review , 34 (4), 327‑343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001 Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and Traditional Bullying : Differential Association With Depression. Journal of Adolescent Health , 48 (4), 415‑417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012 Williford, A. (2015). Intervening in Bullying : Differences across Elementary School Staff Members in Attitudes, Perceptions, and Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Children & Schools , 37 (3), 175‑184. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdv017 Table 1 Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Supplementarymaterials.docx Table1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 07 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in International Journal of Bullying Prevention → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 12 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 05 Feb, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2025 Reviews received at journal 24 Jan, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Jan, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Jan, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 02 Jan, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Jan, 2025 First submitted to journal 26 Dec, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5716629","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":402458274,"identity":"fc84cace-088e-41a2-9eba-f2faa0fea3c4","order_by":0,"name":"Inès Martelli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Paris 8 University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Inès","middleName":"","lastName":"Martelli","suffix":""},{"id":402458275,"identity":"9d203ac3-45d2-4145-b089-18c07c5fdfdd","order_by":1,"name":"Estelle Grand","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Estelle","middleName":"","lastName":"Grand","suffix":""},{"id":402458276,"identity":"86f427c0-9c08-4312-8fcf-2acf9b6f7064","order_by":2,"name":"Antoinette Dewandre","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Paris 8 University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Antoinette","middleName":"","lastName":"Dewandre","suffix":""},{"id":402458277,"identity":"21c28596-85af-4a4c-9aeb-b1f5dbe06683","order_by":3,"name":"Marianne Habib","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Paris 8 University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marianne","middleName":"","lastName":"Habib","suffix":""},{"id":402458278,"identity":"71153da7-b449-422f-8440-5d1b891d0701","order_by":4,"name":"Thomas Villemonteix","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Paris 8 University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thomas","middleName":"","lastName":"Villemonteix","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-26 14:08:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5716629/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5716629/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-025-00304-6","type":"published","date":"2025-07-07T15:57:57+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":74247337,"identity":"017d705f-f1ab-4c9c-868b-7d080d7448e0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-20 10:03:18","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentages of responses to the question “What is your interpretation of bullying? \u003cem\u003eI believe bullying is when\u003c/em\u003e: tick none, one or more boxes”.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5716629/v1/4d4ea32c02de0411b38c598a.png"},{"id":74247338,"identity":"bbc1eedf-9883-47ae-9ceb-d2168d17486b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-20 10:03:18","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17122,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePercentages of the answers to the question: “\u003cem\u003eWho is responsible for any bullying that takes place among the children?: tick one or more boxes”.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5716629/v1/00b32379b65c17724411c489.png"},{"id":86700088,"identity":"6c179148-5cb7-43e4-af38-16b2558e2a23","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-14 16:11:33","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":786243,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5716629/v1/35f3cb45-104e-4ab2-a00c-3f3c7df65878.pdf"},{"id":74247345,"identity":"06977293-d7a0-4698-a27f-29baebc8cf29","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-20 10:03:18","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":202178,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementarymaterials.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5716629/v1/309b3873062210a97693acd8.docx"},{"id":74247339,"identity":"7ab8586c-cca3-4ab3-b7a6-18b9bf434fde","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-20 10:03:18","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":24485,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5716629/v1/d82f6b0699dc844581291459.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Does bullying occur in preschool? A survey of French preschool workers’ perceptions and beliefs about bullying","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSchool bullying is one of the major adverse childhood events that a child can experience (Finkelhor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Longitudinal studies have shown that school bullying can have short-, medium-, and long-term consequences for both the victims and perpetrators (Reijntjes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; K\u0026auml;rn\u0026auml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). For the victims, it is a medium and long term risk factor for psychiatric disorders such as anxiety disorders or depression, low self-esteem and trust issues (K\u0026auml;rn\u0026auml; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The perpetrators are at risk of developing internalizing symptoms such as depression and psychosomatic issues (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), along with externalizing symptoms (Olweus \u0026amp; Limber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010a\u003c/span\u003e). School bullying negatively impacts the academic performances of students and cultivates a negative view of the school environment (Laith \u0026amp; Vaillancourt, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Preschool workers are part of the main actors engaged in children\u0026rsquo;s education at school, and are responsible for their emotional and physical security. Consequently, it is essential to gain insight into the perceptions and beliefs held by preschool workers regarding bullying.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDefinition and dynamics of bullying\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBullying implies a series of verbal, psychological and/or physical aggressions, and its dynamics include different and sometimes interchangeable roles: the victims, the perpetrators, the bully-victims and the bystanders (Olweus \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Olweus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Potard \u0026amp; Henry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Vlachou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In accordance with the definition proposed by Olweus (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), three elements are required to qualify an aggressive behavior as bullying. The first element is an imbalance of power between the victim and the aggressor, where the victim does not feel in capacity to effectively defend himself or herself (Olweus \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). According to Volk and collaborators (2014), the notion of imbalance of power plays a pivotal role in differentiating bullying from other forms of proactive aggression. Power can rely on social, cognitive, material and/or physical components (Volk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). From an evolutionary perspective, bullying can be envisioned as an exploration of dominant roles (i.e. power imbalances) within social groups during development (Skoglund, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The second element is repetitiveness (Olweus \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). Although bullying should be differentiated from \u0026ldquo;occasional non-serious negative actions that are directed against one student at one time and against another on a different occasion\u0026rdquo; (Olweus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e), repetitiveness should not be considered as an absolutely necessary criterion (Olweus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Indeed, a one-time event with a pronounced intensity can be experienced as extremely distressing by the victim and result in significant consequences, as can repeated events with a lesser perceived intensity (Volk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The third and last definitional element is intentionality, i.e. an intent by the bully to implement the aggressive behavior (Olweus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Intentionality differentiates bullying from involuntary incidents that could still be harmful (Andrews et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). It implies that the perpetrator has the capacity to cease their behavior if they decided to. However, the perpetrator may not be aware that their action constitutes \u0026ldquo;bullying\u0026rdquo;, or may not be fully conscious of the level of distress they are inflicting on the victim, or of the underlying motivations behind their behavior. Perpetrators' reported motives can vary, with \u0026ldquo;just for fun\u0026rdquo; being one of the most common reported motives (Volk et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, while bullies have in most cases a cognitive understanding that the exerted behavior will be perceived as unpleasant by the targeted person, they can lack empathy for the victim (Van Noorden et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, while bullying can involve complex voluntary strategies with increasing age, the presence of such strategic preparation is not necessary to establish intentionality. When it comes to operationalizing the construct in research settings, the issue of intentionality is often addressed through the measurement of repetitiveness, which, beyond a certain level, is considered a sufficient indicator of the intentional nature of the behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePrevalence and types of bullying among preschoolers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssessing bullying in preschool children is a complex process due to the restrictions underpinning the implementation of standard self-report questionnaires typically used in older age groups (Vlachou et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Preschool teacher reports are generally considered as more valid; however teachers may not be fully aware of all instances of victimization (Monks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these methodological challenges, findings from the limited number of studies available suggest that preschoolers can perpetuate both direct and indirect aggressive behaviors, including physical and verbal assaults, social exclusion and rumor spreading (Perren \u0026amp; Alsaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Kovač \u0026amp; Cameron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Helgeland \u0026amp; Lund, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Monks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Vlachou et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Research also shows that bullying in early education settings must be considered in a developmental perspective (Andrews et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Aggressive behaviors in younger children are usually direct, as they lack social sophistication and tend to respond to immediate problems. Moreover, victims in this age group are more likely to experience victimization over shorter periods than in older cohorts (Vlachou et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe uncertainties associated with the evaluation of bullying along with the developmental characteristics of aggressive behavioral patterns found in younger age groups have led some researchers to question the relevance of applying the term \u0026ldquo;bullying\u0026rdquo; in preschool settings (Vlachou, 2011). Nonetheless, studies investigating peer victimization and aggressor vs. victim roles in early education settings have shown that some children are regularly victims of aggressive behaviors by their peers, and that some children regularly engage in aggressive behaviors, indicating that the relational patterns characterizing bullying are already operating during the preschool years (Perren \u0026amp; Alsaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Taking into account a repetition threshold for aggression (target and/or perpetrator) of at least once a week, Perren and Alsaker (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) found in a sample of Swiss kindergartners that 7% of children were designated as victims of bullying, 12% as \u0026ldquo;bullies\u0026rdquo;, and 7% as \u0026ldquo;bully-victims\u0026rdquo; by their teachers. The remaining 54% of children were considered to be non-involved. In another study conducted in the United Kingdom, 4\u0026ndash;6 years old students reported whether their peers could be classified as aggressors, victims or defenders twice over a 4 month-interval. The percentages of the sample found to be in the same role at both time points was 15% for aggressors and 3% for victims (Monks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe importance of preschool workers beliefs regarding bullying and bullying prevention\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreschool workers are frequently asked to provide insights on bullying through the use of standardized tools. Their beliefs, in turn, influence the prevalence data on preschool bullying (Camodeca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e ; Vlachou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), the teaching styles children benefit from, the way children perceive themselves, and the social dynamics between children during school time (Coplan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sugawara \u0026amp; Cunningham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Hughes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Sakellariou \u0026amp; Rentzou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, preschool workers' beliefs and knowledge about bullying influence the labeling of some behaviors as bullying, their ability to detect more insidious forms of bullying, and the extent to which prevention and intervention strategies are implemented within schools (De Luca et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Iraklis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e ; Kovač \u0026amp; Cameron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Vlachou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Williford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome studies have explored preschool workers\u0026rsquo; beliefs regarding the age at which bullying can occur (Campbell \u0026amp; Morgan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kirves \u0026amp; Sajaniemi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kovač \u0026amp; Cameron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Kirves and Sajaniemi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) interviewed Finnish preschool workers and found that the term was commonplace among the day care staff, who could describe several situations that they classified as bullying. A cross national study asked 50 childcare workers from several countries who volunteered to participate to evaluate when bullying starts, and a mean age of 3.7 was reported (Campbell \u0026amp; Morgan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, in a study conducted in Norway, Kovač and Cameron (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) asked 694 preschool workers how old a child must be to be able to bully others. Participants were required to choose only one option among integers ranging from 1 to 6 years. Approximately 90% chose one of the first three years of age, while less than 3% indicated that a child must be 5 years old or older. Hence, based on this limited number of findings, preschool workers appear to generally agree on the fact that bullying can occur during the preschool years.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevels of knowledge of the definitional components of bullying have been found to vary among preschool workers (Boulton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Ey \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Garner et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kovač \u0026amp; Cameron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In an early study, Boulton (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) asked preschool teachers to indicate their agreement with definitions of school bullying that included different types of behaviors (Boulton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Only about one in four of them included name-calling, spreading degrading gossip, intimidation by staring and taking other people\u0026rsquo;s belongings in their conceptualization of bullying (Boulton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), thereby excluding relational forms of aggression that are in reality part of the aggressive behaviors that can constitute bullying. A study conducted in Australia revealed that only 17,7% of preschool teachers included the three essential characteristics outlined by Olweus (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) in their spontaneous definition of \u0026ldquo;bullying\u0026rdquo; (Ey \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, all the participants recognized that bullying and fighting were different, with 80% of them identifying constant repetition, 67% intent to harm and 65% power imbalance as important differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the beliefs of preschool workers on bullying prevention, Cameron and Kovač (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) analyzed survey data collected in a sample of Norwegian preschool workers and found that 77% of them believed that they had the individual competence required to prevent and deal with bullying. Humphrey (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) explored the beliefs of Minnesota preschool teachers regarding prevention. The qualitative interviews analyzed yielded several main themes, with preschool teachers globally recommending three levels of bullying prevention: (i) at the classroom level with a need of identifying bullying behaviors and providing an immediate response; (ii) at the school level with the will to create school policies on the prevention of bullying and (iii) at the community level with the objective to create a conscious community surrounding the children on this topic (Humphrey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings, based on research conducted in a limited number of countries, indicate that preschool workers consider that bullying can occur from an early age, face challenges in providing a comprehensive definition of bullying, and hold positive beliefs about the importance of implementing prevention strategies at the preschool level. Several of these studies were conducted in Northern European countries, where strong policies against bullying have been implemented for several years, including preventive approaches (Sainio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In France, no preventive policy has been deployed until 2021, and the recent national program does not include action at the preschool level. Thus, French preschool workers may have a more limited understanding and knowledge of bullying than preschoolers in Northern European countries. Furthermore, it should be noted that the French language has a unique word, \u003cem\u003eharc\u0026egrave;lement\u003c/em\u003e, that is used both to describe aggressive behaviors in a variety of settings, including sexual and verbal intimidations among adults, and in the legal context. Bullying is legally defined in France by various texts, including the Penal Code, the Employment Code and a recent specific law on school bullying (L\u0026eacute;gifrance, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; L\u0026eacute;gifrance, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; L\u0026eacute;gifrance, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Service Public, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, if the bully is over thirteen years old, they are liable to imprisonment and fines. This situation is different from many other countries, including the United States or the United Kingdom, where the phenomenon of harassment is legally defined, while school bullying is regulated by governmental or federal directives (Gov.uk, n.d; StopBullying.gov, n.d). The stronger link that exists in France between bullying incidents and the possibility of legal prosecution could lead to greater reluctance among professionals in France to label young children's behavior as bullying.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe current study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn light of the pivotal role that educators play in the prevention of bullying, the current study aimed at exploring for the first time, the beliefs and perceptions of French preschool workers regarding preschool bullying and its prevention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestionnaire data were collected from three professional populations: (1) teacher staff, including teachers and preschool directors; (2) extracurricular staff, including after-school facilitators, extracurricular directors and accompanying persons for students with disabilities and (3) preschool assistants. The following questions were addressed in this study: (1) Do the French preschool workers endorse the key definitional aspects of the scientific definition of bullying? ; (2) Have they identified aggressive behaviors among the students that could constitute bullying, and do they consider that bullying exists in preschool? (3) What are their concerns regarding the positioning of school staff and parents in relation to bullying? ; (4) What are their beliefs concerning the prevention of bullying? Since our professional groups differed in their professional background and roles, we also examined whether answers differed between our two main groups, namely the teacher staff (including preschool teachers and preschool directors) vs. the extracurricular staff.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in 16 preschools located in the urban unit of Paris, within two neighboring districts (Saint-Ouen and the 18th district of Paris). All of the preschools belonged to the French Priority Education Network (\u003cem\u003eR\u0026eacute;seau d\u0026rsquo;\u0026Eacute;ducation Prioritaire\u003c/em\u003e), which identifies socio-economic deprived areas requiring increased educational investment. Data collection was organized in the context of a pilot study supporting the cultural adaptation of the Danish bullying prevention program \u003cem\u003eFri for Mobberi\u003c/em\u003e (Free of bullying) (The Mary Foundation \u0026amp; Save the Children Denmark, 2017). Data collection took place prior to the initiation of the program training and implementation. In total, 191 preschool workers aged from less than 20 years old (1.6%), to more than 50 years old (22.5%) participated in the current study (see Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1 for a more complete description of the participants\u0026rsquo; demographics): 104 (54%) teacher staff (including 20 school directors), 71 (31.2%) extracurricular staff (including 6 facilitators with leadership positions and 3 accompanying persons for students with disabilities), and 16 (8.3%) preschool assistants. Among the 191 participants, 34 were male. Thirteen (6.8%) had less than one year of professional experience, 40 (20.9%) between one and five years, 42 (22%) between five and ten years, 96 (50%) more than ten years. The tables for the distribution of age, gender and years of experience by group are provided in the Supplementary material (see Supplementary Tables\u0026nbsp;1, 2 and 3 for more information).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection and survey instrument\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeams of each school were simultaneously met by a study investigator to collect survey data (12 meetings). Meetings included between 15 and 25 participants, with teams from smaller schools combined for four of these sessions. The survey was provided in English by the Danish Mary Foundation, which supports the deployment of \u003cem\u003eFri for Mobberi\u003c/em\u003e, and was used in the original pilot study of the program in Denmark (Kamstrup Knudsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). It includes both multiple choice and open-ended questions. The English version was translated in French and back-translated by two independent translators. During the meeting, each participant completed the survey which included 4 key topics: definition of bullying (3 questions), description of bullying phenomena in preschool (3 questions), positioning of staff and parents (3 questions), and bullying prevention (2 questions; see Supplementary material \u0026ldquo;Questionnaire for preschool staff\u0026rdquo; for the complete list of the items). After completing the section of the survey devoted to the description of bullying phenomena in preschool, the teams were invited to orally discuss their experiences of preschool bullying. Oral exchanges were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. The procedure was approved by the Paris-Lumi\u0026egrave;res ethics committee of the UFR SPSE, Psychological and Educational Sciences (reference number: 04-n\u0026deg;1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMultiple-choice data were first analyzed descriptively, followed by an inferential analysis to compare the percentage of answers in our two main groups of participants i.e. the teacher staff vs extracurricular staff groups using a Chi-Square test on the Jamovi software (2024). Open-ended questions and oral exchanges were analyzed using thematic analysis. Thematic analysis of the data was carried out using the Framework Method (Gale et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Each open-ended question was analyzed separately. Analysis began with two members of the research team (IM and TV) independently reading and becoming familiar with the answers and coding the data. Preliminary codes were identified inductively through this process and an initial coding framework was developed. As new codes were identified, the analytical framework was iteratively refined until the team was confident that all data had been accounted for. A matrix framework was created in Excel to organize and chart the coded verbatim data. This framework allowed the research team to explore the data, produce summaries and generate themes and subthemes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne question specifically addressed the topic of bullying definition. Through the analysis of respondent\u0026rsquo;s answers, we identified the elements of repetition, exclusion from a group, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as the key elements mentioned in this survey. In the first stage, the frequency of mentions for each definitional element was recorded. In a second stage, we categorized and numbered more complex responses that combined multiple definitional elements in a single answer, including two, three, or four definitional elements. Answers containing two components included combinations such as physical aggression and verbal aggression; physical aggression and repetition; verbal aggression and repetition; physical aggression and exclusion from the group; verbal aggression and exclusion from the group; or exclusion from the group and repetition. Answers containing three components combined physical aggression, verbal aggression, and repetition. Finally, answers containing four components combined physical aggression, verbal aggression, exclusion from the group, and repetition.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e1. Definition of bullying\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, participants were asked \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eDo you believe there is a difference between teasing and bullying?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. Participants were then given the possibility to openly comment their answers. Four themes were extracted from their written comments: \u0026ldquo;repetition as an element of difference between bullying and teasing\u0026rdquo; (34.5% (66) of the participants), \u0026ldquo;magnitude of the problem as an element of difference\u0026rdquo; (8.4% (16)), \u0026ldquo;duration of the issue as an element of difference\u0026rdquo; (1% (2)) and \u0026ldquo;no difference between bullying and teasing\u0026rdquo; (5.8% (11)). 5.8% (12) of the participants gave an off-topic answer, 48.7% (93) of the participants did not answer the question, and 3.7% (7) of the answers were counted twice because they belonged to two different categories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, participants were asked to select answers among proposals to complete the sentence \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eI believe bullying is when\u0026hellip;\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Percentages for each answer in the whole sample are represented in Figure 1, and show that a majority of the respondents estimated that bullying is when \u0026ldquo;a child is often: teased by other children (83%); \u0026ldquo; hit, pushed, bitten or the like (78%); \u0026nbsp;called nasty names by other children (77%) ignored or excluded in other ways (77%).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, participants were asked: \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eDescribe in your own words what you interpret as bullying. Just write what immediately comes to mind\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;. Four themes were extracted through qualitative analysis of written answers: \u0026ldquo;repetition of an aggression\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;verbal aggressions\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;physical aggressions\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;exclusion from the group of children\u0026rdquo;. 46% (88) of the participants included repetitiveness of aggression; 48.2% (92) of the participants included verbal aggressions; 31.4% (60) included physical aggressions and finally 22% (42) included exclusion from the group of children in their description of bullying. 7.3% (14) of the answers were off-topic. In a second categorization, we numbered the more complex answers: 14.7% (28) of the participants included two components in their answers; 14.7% (28) of the participants included three components in their answers and 2% (4) participants included four components in their answers. 6.8% (13) of the participants did not answer or did not provide a precise enough answer for us to include their response in our analysis. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e2. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Description of bullying and exclusion phenomena among preschool students\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, participants were asked \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eDo some of the children in your preschool intimidate each other?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. 57.3% of the teacher staff and 42.4% of the extracurricular staff think that it is the case sometimes; while a minority of the teacher staff (3.9%) and of the extracurricular staff (10.6%) think it is often the case.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, participants were asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Do all of the children in your preschool have playmates, or is anyone left out?\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. 44.4% of the extracurricular staff think that all of the children have someone to play with, while it is the case only for 17.5% of the teacher staff. 62.1% of the teacher staff think that certain children occasionally do not have someone to play with, while 44.4% of the extracurricular staff think the same idea.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, participants answered the open question \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eIn what ways do the children usually intimidate each other? Describe in your own words\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e47.1% (90) of the participants mentioned elements of verbal aggression. More specifically, 17.8% (34) reported verbal mockeries related to clothing, physical appearance, etc.; 5.8% (11) mentioned threats; 3.1% (6) mentioned shouting / yelling and 1% (2) mentioned insults. 27.2% (52) of the participants indicated elements of physical aggression. Within this category, 4.1% of the participants (8) mentioned hitting; 2.6% (5) nudging; 2.6% (5) taking an aggressive / intimidating physical stance; 1.2% (3) verbally threatening to hit; one participant mentioned pulling hair; one participant mentioned playing violent games ; and one participant mentioned gestures such as showing the middle finger. Finally, 23% (44) of the participants reported elements of relational aggression, such as social exclusion and blackmailing according to 8.4% (16) of the participants; exclusion from peer activities / rejection of classmates according to 7.3% (14) of the participants; leading activities in a dominant manner according to 5.2% (10) of the participants; and forcing classmates to do something against their will according to one participant. 26.2% (50) of the participants did not answer this question. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, participants were asked to discuss whether they had witnessed bullying in preschool. Over the course of the 12 meetings, 4 groups reported that they had never observed bullying in their preschool setting. 7 groups expanded on this claim, arguing that the term \u0026quot;bullying\u0026quot; is inadequate to describe aggressive behaviors during the preschool years for several reasons: (1) both targets and perpetrators of aggressive behaviors were not consistent over time (3/7), (2) preschool children do not fully understand the consequences of their actions and are in the process of learning to coexist (2/7), and (3) aggressive behaviors in preschool are not typically supported by groups of children targeting a single individual (1/7). 2 groups felt that the term \u0026quot;bullying\u0026quot; is too strong for this age group, while 1 group stated that what is observed in preschool are merely the premises of bullying. Only 1 of the 12 groups was ambivalent, as a portion of its members believed that bullying could indeed occur in preschool.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e3. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Positioning of staff and parents\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, participants were asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;In your experience, does bullying \u0026ndash; or a bad tone \u0026ndash; exist among staff members at your preschool?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026nbsp;Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (59.6.7% ) and of the extracurricular staff (64%) indicated that they do not perceive the presence of bullying or a bad tone among staff members at their respective preschool. Second, participants were asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Do you feel that all members of staff speak to the children in an appropriate manner?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (58.2%) and of the extracurricular staff (63.5%) indicate that the members of the staff typically interact with the children in an appropriate manner. Third, participants were asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;How would you rate your collaboration with parents?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (77.3%) and of the extracurricular staff (72.6%) would rate their collaboration with parents positively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e4. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Bullying prevention\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, when asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Has your preschool focused on bullying in the past?\u0026rsquo;,\u003c/em\u003e 49.7% (95) of the participants answered \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eno\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eyes, in connection with one or more specific incidents\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;: 38,7% (74), \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eyes, we have discussed bullying at staff meetings\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;: 1% (2), \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eyes, we have raised bullying at meetings with the parents\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;: 0.5% (1). 10.5% (20) of the participants did not answer this question.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, participants were \u0026nbsp;asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Are there any areas that you feel you and your colleagues could improve, in respect of how you deal with conflict and teasing among the children?\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (57%) and of the extracurricular staff (60%) answered \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eyes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;. In this question, an open-ended part was also completed by the participants. 23% (44) of the participants considered that communication, both oral (20.9%) and visual (2.1%), could be improved, as well as the degree of prevention of bullying according to 4.7% (9) of the participants; the access to training for the school personnel according to 3.7% (7) of the participants; conflict-management according to 3.1% (6) of the participants. 2.6% (5) of the participants mentioned other elements such as the importance of creating a safe school climate (1) and the need to improve how adults address and respond to young children\u0026apos;s emotions (4). 58% (111) of the participants did not answer this question, and 5.2% (10) of the participants gave an off-topic answer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, participants were asked to select answers among proposals to respond to the question \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003eWho is responsible for any bullying that takes place among the children? \u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Percentages for each answer in the whole sample are represented in the figure below (see Figure 2). \u0026ldquo;The children\u0026rsquo;s group\u0026rdquo; (80%) and \u0026ldquo;the individual child\u0026rdquo; (52%) were the two most frequent answers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, participants were asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Do you believe bullying can be prevented?\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/em\u003e Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the teacher staff (95%) and of the extracurricular staff (93.9%) hold positive thoughts on the fact that bullying can be prevented.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFifth, participants answered the open question \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhat do you believe could be done to prevent bullying? Just write what immediately comes to mind\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/em\u003e 27.7% (53) of the participants considered that bullying can be prevented by providing children with information on the topic; 12% (23) by giving children the opportunity to talk about the difficulties they face at school due to bullying; 11% (21) by the use of various tools, such as books on the topic of bullying, role-plays in class, short videos followed by discussions, games or activities related to bullying; 11% (21) suggested being vigilant in observing interactions between children and intervening promptly when bullying occurs; 8.9% (17) of the participants emphasized collaboration with parents; 6.8% (13) stressed the need for a professional team trained in addressing bullying to support children; 6.3% (12) highlighted the importance of fostering empathy within the children\u0026apos;s group; 5.2% (10) pointed to strengthening group cohesion among children; and 3.1% (6) believed bullying could be prevented through training for school professionals. 4.7% (9) of the participants gave off-topic answers, and 21.5% (41) participants did not answer this question.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSixth, participants were asked \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Do you believe that parents can take steps to prevent bullying?\u0026rsquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e Responses repartition and the result of the Chi-square analysis are reported in Table 1. The majority of the preschool teachers (76.8%) and of the extracurricular staff (69.7%) indicate that they surely believe that parents can take steps to prevent bullying. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, participants answered the open-ended question \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhat do you think will be the biggest challenge to working with Free of Bullying?\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIn the whole sample, 13.6% (26) of the participants identified continuous engagement in a prevention program as the biggest challenge. This includes keeping all school staff and parents engaged over time (7.8% or 15 participants ), motivating children to apply their learnings about bullying (1.6% 3)), harmonizing rules and information among teachers to create continuity within the school (1% (2)). The second major challenge, highlighted by 7.4% (14) of participants was the adaptation of messages around bullying and its consequences for young children. The third challenge identified by 5.2% (10) of participants involved finding the time to regularly propose prevention activities. 4.2% (8) identified communication as a main challenge, and more precisely the need for improved communication among adults surrounding the children (school staff and parents) and conveying clear information about bullying to the children.. Another 4.2% (8) identified the organization of program deployment as a main challenge, particularly in terms of scheduling interventions, training all school staff members, the appropriation of the tools by the professional team and the identification of children\u0026rsquo;s needs. Finally, 3.7% (7) of participants considered creating a peaceful school climate as the main challenge of this implementation, particularly enabling a safe space based on dialogue and communication where children feel secure enough to discuss their problems. 3.7% (7) of the participants gave off-topic answers, and \u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e54% (103) of the participants did not answer the question.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the perceptions and beliefs of French preschool workers regarding the existence and prevention of bullying in preschool settings, focusing on (1) the definition of bullying, (2) the bullying behaviors observed in the preschool setting, (3) the positioning of school staff and parents, (4) workers\u0026rsquo; beliefs concerning bullying prevention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ability of preschool workers to detect bullying among preschoolers depends on their capacity to endorse its key definitional components. In this sample, 33.1% of the respondents did not differentiate bullying from teasing, and more than 30% of respondents considered that a child being occasionally teased or called nasty names could represent a case of bullying. When asked to describe what they interpret as bullying, 48.2% of the participants were able to cite repetitiveness of aggressive behaviors as a definitional feature, but none of them mentioned an imbalance of power or intentionality. These findings suggest that French preschool workers are not familiar with two of the criteria of the definition of bullying, and that between 30% and 52.8% of our participants may not know or underestimate the repetitiveness criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn line with previous studies conducted in other countries (Perren \u0026amp; Alsaker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Boulton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Kovač \u0026amp; Cameron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Helgeland \u0026amp; Lund, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Monks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Vlachou et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), preschool workers reported various forms of verbal, physical and relational aggressions among preschoolers. Verbal aggressions were the most commonly reported. Nonetheless, only 6.6% of the respondents considered that children often intimidate each other, suggesting that these aggressive behaviors were only occasionally observed. Regular exclusion from games of certain children was observed by 14.4% of the respondents, showing that social exclusion dynamics already exist among preschoolers. Interestingly, perceptions of teacher vs. extracurricular staff significantly differed, as teacher staff most often reported social exclusion dynamics. Different hypotheses could explain this perceptive gap: (1) behaviors of children may differ during different day times and under different levels of supervision; (2) the teacher group may have a more accurate perception of child relationships as they spend more time with them; (3) the extracurricular staff may implement games which are proposed to the whole group of children, which may leave out the possibility of spontaneous social exclusion by preschoolers ; (4) the two professional groups may differ in their training or observational skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, when given the possibility to comment on their perceptions of preschool bullying, 11 of the 12 groups considered that the term of bullying was not appropriate in preschool, either because they had never observed it, or because it was too strong for the preschool years. This finding differs from previous studies conducted in Northern European countries (Campbell \u0026amp; Morgan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Kirves and Sajaniemi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kovač and Cameron, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), where an agreement regarding the existence of preschool bullying was found. This discrepancy could be explained by different hypotheses. First, as France has been lacking behind for several years in the domain of bullying prevention, French professionals may have a more limited knowledge and awareness of bullying. In line with this hypothesis, one group considered that the term bullying is not applicable in preschool as children do not fully understand the consequences of their actions and are in the process of learning to coexist (2/7), and another because aggressive behaviors in preschool are not typically supported by groups of children targeting a single individual, while these two criteria are not part of the definition of bullying. Another explanation for the reluctance of French preschool workers to apply the term of bullying in preschool may reside in the difference in terminology found in France when compared to other countries. Indeed, \u003cem\u003eharc\u0026egrave;lement\u003c/em\u003e in France is legally defined and may lead to serious consequences, such as legal prosecutions. Finally, three groups also considered that bullying could not be applied in preschool, as targets and perpetrators are not consistent over time, which is in line with the view of several researchers who consider that the imbalance of power and repetition may not be sufficiently stable to apply the term bullying during the preschool years (Monks et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalyses of items devoted to the positioning of school staff showed that the majority of our respondents considered that professionals spoke in an appropriate manner to other staff members and students. Nonetheless, 17.7% of these respondents reported bullying or at least a bad tone among staff members on an occasional or frequent basis, while 19.5% considered that some or several staff members frequently do not speak to children in an appropriate manner. Scientific literature underscores the importance of fostering a positive school climate for bullying prevention, particularly through supportive teacher attitudes: such a climate is associated with greater student willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors and to prevent bullying and violent threats (Eliot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Gendron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, our findings suggest that professional training of preschool workers could be extended to improve social skills and relationship dynamics within the adult group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcerning the beliefs of the participants on the quality of their collaboration with parents, a large majority rated it in a positive way, and preschool workers reported that they believed that parents can take steps to prevent bullying. This belief is shared by Norwegian preschool workers and parents, although in Norway, the quality of this collaboration is rated as higher by the parents rather than by the preschool workers (Cameron \u0026amp; Kovač, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Previous research has pointed out the importance of collaboration between preschool workers and parents. Such as Ma and collaborators (2016), who showed that a strong involvement of parents in the early education of their children, especially in the connection with the school and the preschool, is positively correlated to learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the prevention of bullying, our study reveals that most preschool workers have not previously focused on this issue. Analyzing the qualitative data, we found that French preschool workers tend to adopt reactive rather than preventive approaches to bullying. This finding aligns with existing international research, which indicates that preschool workers typically respond to bullying situations as they arise and only discuss the issue with parents when a child is directly involved (Cameron \u0026amp; Kovač, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Among the participants, only 42% cited the teachers as one of the responsibles of bullying when it takes place between children. Furthermore, while a strong majority of participants believe that bullying can be prevented, nearly 3% feel it cannot be prevented, about 5% are uncertain, and approximately 37% think it is only probably preventable. These findings possibly reflect the lack of coherent preventive policy currently deployed in the French preschool settings, and indicate a lack of training of professionals in bullying prevention. The doubts that some professionals hold about the possibility of bullying prevention and the apparent low level of responsibility felt by the preschool workers may also hamper the dissemination of preventive programs. Nonetheless, 56% of the respondents considered that they could improve their management of children's aggressive behaviors, showing to the least that a majority of professionals may be open to the introduction of new practices. To prevent bullying, our sample believed in majority that more information should be shared to preschoolers on this topic. Only 11% of respondents cited activities such as role-play, short videos followed by discussion, games or activities typically found in prevention programs as possible means of reducing bullying. When asked to think of the biggest challenge they may face when working with a prevention program, 13.6% of participants considered that remaining continuously engaged in such a program would be a challenge, which is indeed an important question to address when disseminating prevention programs to achieve sustainability (Moore et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study presents several strengths and limitations that should be considered. Among its strengths, the sample included several schools, and two groups of workers (teacher staff and extracurricular staff) were largely represented, allowing us to compare their perceptions and beliefs. The schools were not selected on a voluntary basis, ensuring that the participants are not biased in favor of bullying prevention compared to other school staff. The methodological choice of using both quantitative and qualitative analyses allowed us to capture tendencies in perceptions and beliefs, while exploring important nuances, especially in the definitional aspects of the concept of bullying.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study also does have certain limitations. A key limitation is the uneven distribution of participants across groups, especially the lower number of preschool assistants, which was insufficient to include this group in our comparative analysis. Gaining a deeper understanding of preschool assistants\u0026rsquo; beliefs would have been interesting, particularly in order to compare it with teachers' perspectives, given the differences in their training, roles in the classroom, and relationships with children. Another methodological limitation of this study is the potential risk of social desirability bias in participants\u0026rsquo; responses, as the investigators were also investigating the pilot phase of the \u003cem\u003eFree of bullying\u003c/em\u003e program. Utilizing multiple data collection methods, as was done here, is a useful first step in addressing this issue. However, we could have gone further by statistically measuring the social desirability bias (Hart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, regarding the relationship between preschool workers and parents, we did not measure parents\u0026rsquo; beliefs. Collecting this data would have been valuable to determine whether the beliefs of preschool workers align with those of parents and to gain a more accurate understanding of their relationship. Finally, a key limitation of our study is that we did not gather preschool workers\u0026rsquo; beliefs regarding the dynamics between victim and perpetrator roles. Assessing this topic would have helped determine whether preschool workers believe the roles of victims and perpetrators are interchangeable in preschool settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConclusions and orientations for further research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is the first conducted in France on this topic, providing valuable new data on the perceptions and beliefs of preschool workers. Understanding their beliefs is essential for improving bullying prevention programs in preschool settings and ensuring strong engagement from preschool staff in preventive initiatives. Although French preschool workers were reluctant to use the term \u0026ldquo;bullying\u0026rdquo; to describe interactions among young children, they did observe physical, verbal, and relational aggressions, underscoring the need for preventive programs to address these behaviors. Such forms of aggression are also reported among preschool staff, further highlighting the importance of fostering a positive, peaceful climate for both children and adults. Participants appeared to have not focused on bullying prevention in the past, and to be aware that progress could be made in their schools regarding this issue. Nonetheless, some were also hesitant about the possibility of preventing bullying, and a majority appeared to underestimate the responsibility of adult professionals in addressing this issue. For future research on this topic, scholars examining preschool workers\u0026rsquo; beliefs should aim to address the methodological gaps in this study, ensuring that all relevant missing data\u0026mdash;outlined here\u0026mdash;are collected. As for bullying prevention in French preschools, our findings confirm that this issue has been largely overlooked and that preschool staff generally hold a positive view on the feasibility of prevention. This positions them, alongside parents, as essential allies in efforts to prevent bullying at this early stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEthics, consent to participate and/or to publish\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe procedure was approved by the Paris-Lumi\u0026egrave;res ethics committee of the UFR SPSE, Psychological and Educational Sciences (reference number: 04-n\u0026deg;1). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePartial financial support was received from the French Regional Health Agency (Agence R\u0026eacute;gionale de Sant\u0026eacute;, ARS). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIM, TV wrote the main manuscript and text.IM and EG analyzed the quantitative data, with a review of TV and MH.IM, TV and EG analyzed the qualitative data, with a review of MH and AD.IM and TV prepared table 1.IM prepared figures 1 and 2. MH and AD conducted a thorough rereading of the manuscript.All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors will provide the dataset containing questionnaire responses for the entire sample upon request. However, the transcribed data from the focus groups cannot be shared due to confidentiality agreements outlined in the consent forms.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlsaker, F. D., \u0026amp; Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2010). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully\u0026ndash;victims, and bullies in kindergarten. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, \u0026amp; D. L. Espelage (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe handbook of school bullying. An international perspective\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 87\u0026ndash;99). New York, NY: Routledge\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlsaker, F. D., \u0026amp; Valkanover, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Junoven \u0026amp; S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 175\u0026ndash;195). New York: Guilford. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrews, N. C. Z., Cillessen, A. H. N., Craig, W., Dane, A. V., \u0026amp; Volk, A. A. (2023). Bullying and the Abuse of Power. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Bullying Prevention\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 261‑270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00170-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaiden, P., LaBrenz, C. A., Okine, L., Thrasher, S., \u0026amp; Asiedua-Baiden, G. (2020). The toxic duo : Bullying involvement and adverse childhood experiences as factors associated with school disengagement among children. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e, 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105383\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers\u0026rsquo; views on bullying : Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(2), 223‑233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01239.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCameron, D. L., \u0026amp; Kovač, V. B. (2017). Parents and preschool workers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of competence, collaboration, and strategies for addressing bullying in early childhood. \u003cem\u003eChild Care in Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 126‑140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2016.1259156\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCamodeca, M., Caravita, S. C. S., \u0026amp; Coppola, G. (2015). Bullying in preschool : The associations between participant roles, social competence, and social preference. \u003cem\u003eAggressive Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 310‑321. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21541\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, M., \u0026amp; Morgan, N. (2017). Adults\u0026rsquo; perceptions of bullying in early childhood. In P. T. Slee, G. Skrzypiec, \u0026amp; C. Cefai (\u0026Eacute;ds.), \u003cem\u003eChild And Adolescent Wellbeing And Violence Prevention In Schools\u003c/em\u003e (1\u003csup\u003ere\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026eacute;d., p. 101‑108). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102047-10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChester, K. L., Callaghan, M., Cosma, A., Donnelly, P., Craig, W., Walsh, S., \u0026amp; Molcho, M. (2015). Cross-national time trends in bullying victimization in 33 countries among children aged 11, 13 and 15 from 2002 to 2010. \u003cem\u003eThe European Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(suppl 2), 61‑64. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoplan, R. J., Bullock, A., Archbell, K. A., \u0026amp; Bosacki, S. (2015). Preschool teachers\u0026rsquo; attitudes, beliefs, and emotional reactions to young children\u0026rsquo;s peer group behaviors. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 117‑127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.09.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Luca, L., Nocentini, A., \u0026amp; Menesini, E. (2019). The Teacher\u0026rsquo;s Role in Preventing Bullying. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e, 1830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01830\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDirection de l\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;valuation, de la prospective et de la performance (DEPP). (2024). Premiers r\u0026eacute;sultats statistiques de l\u0026rsquo;Enqu\u0026ecirc;te harc\u0026egrave;lement 2023. https://www.education.gouv.fr/premiers-resultats-statistiques-de-l-enquete-harcelement-2023-380517 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., \u0026amp; Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of School Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(6), 533‑553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEy, L., \u0026amp; Campbell, M. (2022). Australian Early Childhood Teachers\u0026rsquo; Understanding of Bullying. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(15‑16), NP13766‑NP13790. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211006355\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H., \u0026amp; Hamby, S. (2015). A revised inventory of Adverse Childhood Experiences. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 13‑21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S., \u0026amp; Redwood, S. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Research Methodology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarner, P. W., Parker, T., \u0026amp; Dortch, M. K. (2017). Concordance in peer victimization-related beliefs across parents and in-service and preservice early childhood teachers. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e187\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1732‑1744. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1186017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGendron, B. P., Williams, K. R., \u0026amp; Guerra, N. G. (2011). An Analysis of Bullying Among Students Within Schools : Estimating the Effects of Individual Normative Beliefs, Self-Esteem, and School Climate. \u003cem\u003eJournal of School Violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 150‑164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.539166\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGov.uk. (n.d.).\u003cem\u003e Bullying at school\u003c/em\u003e. Schools and education. Retrieved October, 15, 2024 fromhttps://www.gov.uk/bullying-at-school \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraham, S. (2011). Bullying: A module for teachers. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychological Association\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., \u0026amp; Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16). \u003cem\u003eSage Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2158244015621113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHawley, P. H. (1999). The Ontogenesis of Social Dominance : A Strategy-Based Evolutionary Perspective. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 97‑132. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1998.0470\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelgeland, A., \u0026amp; Lund, I. (2017). Children\u0026rsquo;s Voices on Bullying in Kindergarten. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 133‑141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0784-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, J. N., Cavell, T. A., \u0026amp; Willson, V. (2001). Further Support for the Developmental Significance of the Quality of the Teacher\u0026ndash;Student Relationship. \u003cem\u003eJournal of School Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(4), 289‑301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHumphrey, L. (2013). Preschool Bullying: Does it Exist, What Does it Look Like, and What Can be Done? \u003cem\u003eSocial Work Master\u0026rsquo;s Clinical Research Papers\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIlola, A., Lempinen, L., Huttunen, J., Ristkari, T., \u0026amp; Sourander, A. (2016). Bullying and victimisation are common in four‐year‐old children and are associated with somatic symptoms and conduct and peer problems. \u003cem\u003eActa Paediatrica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e105\u003c/em\u003e(5), 522‑528. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13327\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIraklis, G. (2020). Early childhood educators\u0026rsquo; experiences of bullying episodes : A qualitative approach. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Early Childhood Education Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(6), 774‑788. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1836581\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKamstrup Knudsen, R., Erck, J., Lindberg, S. \u0026amp; Kampmann J. (2008). 3rd report: Views of Bullying as an Everyday Phenomenon in Early School Years. Centre for Childhood and Youth Research (CEBUF), Roskilde University. https://www.freeofbullying.com/scholarly-sources/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eK\u0026auml;rn\u0026auml;, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., \u0026amp; Salmivalli, C. (2011). A Large‐Scale Evaluation of the KiVa Antibullying Program : Grades 4\u0026ndash;6. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(1), 311‑330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirves, L., \u0026amp; Sajaniemi, N. (2012). Bullying in early educational settings. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e182\u003c/em\u003e(3‑4), 383‑400.https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.646724\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKovač, V. B., \u0026amp; Cameron, D. L. (2021). Are We Talking about the Same Thing? A Survey of Preschool Workers\u0026rsquo; Attitudes and Beliefs about Bullying. \u003cem\u003eChild Care in Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 141‑155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2021.1951167\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaith, R., \u0026amp; Vaillancourt, T. (2022). The temporal sequence of bullying victimization, academic achievement, and school attendance : A review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eAggression and Violent Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e, 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101722\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, S. (2020). Kindergarten Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perspectives on Young Children\u0026rsquo;s Bullying Roles in Relation to Dominance and Peer Relationships : A Short-Term Longitudinal Approach in South Korea. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1734. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051734\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eL\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;ducation prioritaire\u003c/em\u003e. (s. d.). Minist\u0026egrave;re de L\u0026rsquo;Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse. https://www.education.gouv.fr/l-education-prioritaire-3140 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026eacute;gifrance. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSection 5 : Du harc\u0026egrave;lement moral (Articles 222-33-2 \u0026agrave; 222-33-2-3).\u003c/em\u003e Code p\u0026eacute;nal. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000047052746 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026eacute;gifrance. (2008). \u003cem\u003eChapitre II : Harc\u0026egrave;lement moral. (Articles L1152-1 \u0026agrave; L1152-6)\u003c/em\u003e. Code du travail. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006177845/2008-05-13/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026eacute;gifrance. (2022). \u003cem\u003eLOI n\u0026deg; 2022-299 du 2 mars 2022 visant \u0026agrave; combattre le harc\u0026egrave;lement scolaire (1). \u003c/em\u003eRetrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFSCTA000045287660 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., \u0026amp; Yuan, J. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Learning Outcomes and Parental Involvement During Early Childhood Education and Early Elementary Education. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(4), 771‑801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonks, C., Ortega Ruiz, R., \u0026amp; Torrado Val, E. (2002). Unjustified aggression in preschool. \u003cem\u003eAggressive Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(6), 458‑476. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10032\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonks, C. P., \u0026amp; Coyne, I. (\u0026Eacute;ds.). (2011). \u003cem\u003eBullying in Different Contexts\u003c/em\u003e (1\u003csup\u003ere\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026eacute;d.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonks, C. P., Smith, P. K., \u0026amp; Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, Victims, and Defenders in Preschool : Peer, Self-, and Teacher Reports. \u003cem\u003eMerrill-Palmer Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(4), 453‑469. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2003.0024 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoore, J. E., Mascarenhas, A., Bain, J., \u0026amp; Straus, S. E. (2017). Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0637-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlweus, D. (1993). \u003cem\u003eBullying at school: What we know and what we can do\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley-Blackwell.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. \u003cem\u003eEducational Leadership\u003c/em\u003e, 60 (6), 12-27. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlweus, D. (2013). School Bullying : Development and Some Important Challenges. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Clinical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 751‑780. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlweus, D., \u0026amp; Limber, S. P. (2010a). Bullying in school : Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Orthopsychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e(1), 124‑134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlweus, D., \u0026amp; Limber, S. P. (2010b). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, \u0026amp; D.L. Espelage (eds.),\u003cem\u003e The Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerspective\u003c/em\u003e (p. 27). New York: Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerren, S., \u0026amp; Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully‐victims, and bullies in kindergarten. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45‑57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01445.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePotard, C., \u0026amp; Henry, A. (2021). \u0026Eacute;motions et apprentissages. In \u003cem\u003e\u0026Eacute;motions et apprentissages\u003c/em\u003e (p. 321‑353). Dunod.https://doi.org/10.3917/dunod.gobin.2021.01.0321\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., \u0026amp; Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children : A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 244‑252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSainio, M., Herkama, S., Kontio, M., \u0026amp; Salmivalli, C. (2019). KiVa anti-bullying programme. In P. K. Smith (\u0026Eacute;d.), \u003cem\u003eMaking an Impact on School Bullying\u003c/em\u003e (1\u003csup\u003ere\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026eacute;d., p. 45‑66). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351201957-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSakellariou, M., \u0026amp; Rentzou, K. (2011). Cypriot pre-service kindergarten teachers\u0026rsquo; beliefs about and practices of developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood education. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e181\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1381‑1396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.531132\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaracho, O. N. (2017). Bullying Prevention Strategies in Early Childhood Education. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(4), 453‑460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0793-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eService Public. (2024). \u003cem\u003eHarc\u0026egrave;lement moral. \u003c/em\u003eFiches pratiques par th\u0026egrave;mes. Retrieved October 9, 2024, from https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F2354 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkoglund, R.I. (2020). Beyond Bullying: Understanding Children\u0026rsquo;s Exploration of Inclusion and Exclusion Processes in Kindergarten. In: Hedegaard, M., Eriksen \u0026Oslash;degaard, E. (eds) Children\u0026rsquo;s Exploration and Cultural Formation. \u003cem\u003eInternational Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development\u003c/em\u003e, vol 29. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36271-3_3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, P. K. (\u0026Eacute;d.). (1999). \u003cem\u003eThe nature of school bullying : A cross-national perspective\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStamatis, P. J., \u0026amp; Nikolaou, E. N. (2018). \u003cem\u003eViolent Communication and Bullying in Early Childhood Education\u003c/em\u003e. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStopBullying.gov. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eLaws, Policies and Regulations\u003c/em\u003e. Laws and Policies. Retrieved October, 15, 2024, from https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSugawara, A., \u0026amp; Cunningham, B. (1988). Preservice Teachers\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Children\u0026rsquo;s Problem Behaviors. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(1), 34‑39.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1988.10885862\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe jamovi project (2024). jamovi (Version 2.) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Mary Foundation \u0026amp; Save the Children Denmark (2017). Free of bullying and children\u0026apos;s socio-emotional skills.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTordjman, S. (2022). Harc\u0026egrave;lement scolaire et violence groupale : Comment occuper une place dans le groupe par l\u0026rsquo;exclusion. \u003cem\u003eL\u0026rsquo;Enc\u0026eacute;phale\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, S19‑S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2022.08.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Noorden, T. H. J., Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., \u0026amp; Bukowski, W. M. (2015). Empathy and Involvement in Bullying in Children and Adolescents : A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 637‑657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0135-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., \u0026amp; Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/Victim Problems Among Preschool Children : A Review of Current Research Evidence. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 329‑358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9153-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVolk, A. A., Dane, A. V., \u0026amp; Al-Jbouri, E. (2022). Is Adolescent Bullying an Evolutionary Adaptation? A 10-Year Review. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 2351‑2378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09703-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVolk, A. A., Dane, A. V., \u0026amp; Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 327‑343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, J., Nansel, T. R., \u0026amp; Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and Traditional Bullying : Differential Association With Depression. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adolescent Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 415‑417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliford, A. (2015). Intervening in Bullying : Differences across Elementary School Staff Members in Attitudes, Perceptions, and Self-Efficacy Beliefs. \u003cem\u003eChildren \u0026amp; Schools\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 175‑184. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdv017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-bullying-prevention","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ijbp","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Bullying Prevention](https://rd.springer.com/journal/42380)","snPcode":"42380","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/42380/3","title":"International Journal of Bullying Prevention","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Bullying, preschool, teacher beliefs, early childhood, perceptions, prevention","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5716629/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5716629/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"School bullying constitutes a significant adverse childhood experience for both victims and perpetrators. Teachers and school staff play a pivotal role in identifying and preventing bullying. Although extensively studied among school-aged children, research on bullying in preschool settings remains scarce. This study used quant data to explore the perceptions and beliefs of French preschool staff (N = 191) regarding bullying, focusing on definitional aspects, observed bullying behaviors in preschool environments, the roles of school staff and parents, and beliefs about prevention. The findings reveal that French preschool staff's understanding of bullying definitions diverges somewhat from those commonly found in the scientific literature. Moreover, participants expressed hesitancy in applying the term \"bullying\" to describe aggressive interactions among preschool-aged children. The results further indicate that professional training for preschool staff could be enhanced to promote more effective interpersonal dynamics within teams. While participants emphasized the importance of implementing prevention programs in French preschools and actively engaging parents, they reported limited implementation of such initiatives. These findings align with existing literature but also highlight unique contextual factors shaped by French educational policies and anti-bullying legislation.","manuscriptTitle":"Does bullying occur in preschool? A survey of French preschool workers’ perceptions and beliefs about bullying","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-20 10:03:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5716629/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-02-12T10:41:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-02-10T10:56:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-02-09T12:10:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"167001472262491920312924100905669669006","date":"2025-02-09T11:41:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"8610849969955382420208982350891955600","date":"2025-02-09T07:53:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-02-05T18:54:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"68408983568195881090048961428579919329","date":"2025-02-05T15:41:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-01-24T16:32:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"37587787182080320016442681378457257647","date":"2025-01-07T13:40:17+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-01-07T13:29:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-01-02T07:30:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-01-02T07:30:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"International Journal of Bullying Prevention","date":"2024-12-26T13:59:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-bullying-prevention","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ijbp","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Bullying Prevention](https://rd.springer.com/journal/42380)","snPcode":"42380","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/42380/3","title":"International Journal of Bullying Prevention","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"972c299e-f1ef-4e93-a935-cea230dae1f6","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 20th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-14T16:09:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5716629","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-025-00304-6","journal":{"identity":"international-journal-of-bullying-prevention","isVorOnly":false,"title":"International Journal of Bullying Prevention"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-07 15:57:57","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 7th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-20 10:03:13","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s42380-025-00304-6","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-025-00304-6","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5716629","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5716629","identity":"rs-5716629","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}