Bullying and poor mental health often take hold in the teenage years, when young people are still learning to manage their emotions and relationships. Schools are under pressure to respond, but many are unsure which approaches work and whether they travel across cultures. A new review suggests that teaching social and emotional skills in the classroom can reduce bullying and support well-being, provided programmes fit the communities they serve.
Researchers at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta in Indonesia carried out a systematic review of 38 studies on social-emotional learning, often shortened to SEL. The findings appear in The Open Psychology Journal. The review asked how well SEL reduces bullying, how it affects teenagers’ emotional skills and mental health, and what helps or hinders it in different settings.
The team searched four databases, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, and ResearchGate, for peer-reviewed English-language papers published between January 2013 and December 2023. The studies involved young people aged roughly 10–19 and included trials, surveys, meta-analyses, and conceptual papers. Two reviewers screened the papers independently and followed standard reporting guidelines for systematic reviews.
SEL is the process of learning to understand and manage emotions, set goals, show empathy, build healthy relationships, and make responsible decisions. Bullying is repeated aggressive behaviour meant to cause harm. Social-emotional competence is the set of everyday skills that lets a young person handle these situations.
Across the studies, SEL programmes were linked to less bullying and victimisation, better emotion regulation and empathy, and lower anxiety and depression. Approaches built around cooperative learning and fair treatment by teachers appeared especially useful. Programmes delivered across a whole school tended to bring more lasting results than short projects.
Culture shaped what worked. Research in Western countries has tended to centre on individual emotion regulation, empathy, and classroom climate, while work in more collectivist societies such as Iran and Indonesia has focused on community harmony, family unity, and moral values. Programmes adapted to local values appeared to engage students better, and benefits were also reported among young people affected by conflict.
The review also identified obstacles. These included inadequate teacher training, limited resources, and a shortage of long-term evaluations. The authors argue that SEL is most likely to last when it forms part of public education policy, is properly funded, and is backed by ongoing teacher training, regular assessment, and links with families and community groups.
The study has clear limits. Most of the research came from Western and East Asian settings, with very little from non-Western or conflict-affected areas. Methods varied widely, many studies were short-term or cross-sectional, and no statistical pooling was carried out, so the conclusions rest on a thematic summary rather than a combined effect size. The review was not registered in advance, it covered only English-language papers, and it did not examine factors such as family life or digital media.
Earlier large reviews have already linked school-based SEL to better social behaviour and lower emotional distress. This one extends the picture to bullying and to different cultural settings. It adds weight to calls for SEL in school curricula, while showing that evidence on long-term effects remains thin.
Schools may be able to reduce bullying and support teenagers’ well-being through social and emotional learning, if programmes suit local cultures and are properly supported.
