所以說父母難為，

真的得多孝順父母才是。

對於很多人而言，

霸凌是身邊的現在進行式，

不管是在學校、家庭、還是社會。

八德國中的事，

喚起了我國中時代的回憶。

身為父母，

都不希望自己經歷過的不愉快，

小孩子再經歷一次。

這是一篇很好的文章，

謝謝您分享。

謝謝您的回應。

我原本想法與您一致，也是認為"語言霸凌的傷害主要在於心理層面。"

所以對這篇論文感到意(想)之外!!

本來這裡是對普羅大眾的介紹，所以只在這裡介紹結論，未及於研究細節。

這篇是回溯性研究，依實證醫學的等級，證據層次落在level II。

在層級上，依法律人的術語來說，算是具備優質的"證明力"。

US Preventive Services Task Force

Systems to stratify evidence by quality have been developed, such as this one by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for ranking evidence about the effectiveness of treatments or screening^[9]:

• Level I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial.
• Level II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization.
• Level II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably from more than one center or research group.
• Level II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention. Dramatic results in uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type of evidence.
• Level III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

 National Health Service

The UK National Health Service uses a similar system with categories labeled A, B, C, and D. The above Levels are only appropriate for treatment or interventions; different types of research are required for assessing diagnostic accuracy or natural history and prognosis, and hence different "levels" are required. For example, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine suggests levels of evidence (LOE) according to the study designs and critical appraisal of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, and harm studies:^[10]

• Level A: Consistent Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial, cohort study, all or none (see note below), clinical decision rule validated in different populations.
• Level B: Consistent Retrospective Cohort, Exploratory Cohort, Ecological Study, Outcomes Research, case-control study; or extrapolations from level A studies.
• Level C: Case-series study or extrapolations from level B studies.
• Level D: Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or first principles.

To examine the symptomatic and neuroanatomical effects of childhood peer verbal abuse, the investigators recruited 848 young adults (363 male, 485 female) aged 18 to 25 years with no history of exposure to domestic violence, sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, or peer physical abuse.

The study also included 707 (298 male, 409 female) age-matched subjects with no history of exposure to any type of abuse, including maternal or paternal verbal abuse.

All study subjects completed a self-report packet that included the Kellner Symptom Questionnaire, the Limbic Symptom Checklist 33, and the Dissociative Experiences Scale.

In addition, diffusion tensor images were collected for 63 young adults with no history of abuse or exposure to parental verbal abuse but did have varying degrees of exposure to peer verbal abuse.

Substantial exposure to peer verbal abuse was reported by 9.2% of participants with no exposure to childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence, or parental physical or verbal abuse and by 17.9% of the entire sample. These findings, researchers note, highlight the fact that exposure to substantial levels of peer verbal abuse is all too common.

謝謝你來回應。

可否請教拜託一事，

對於霸凌，

可否給我們一些你寶貴的看法?

或許說來話長，

不過我是問認真的，沒在開玩笑。