The Influence of Aggressors' Characteristics on ...

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30:355–374, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1537-7903 print / 1537-7911 online DOI: 10.1080/15377903.2014.950443

The Influence of Aggressors’ Characteristics on Teachers’ Responses to Physical and Relational Aggression SAMANTHA T. ROGOWICZ, TAMARA DEL VECCHIO, TANYA DWYER-MASIN, and ELIZABETH M. HUGHES Downloaded by [Tamara Del Vecchio] at 09:45 30 October 2014

St. John’s University, Queens, New York, USA

In the present study, middle school teachers responded to written vignettes describing physical and relational aggressive incidents. The aggressors were male or female children committing an aggressive act against same-sex peers, who were also described as good or bad. Among the results, teachers rated female physical aggression as more serious and deserving of more severe punishment than male physical and relational aggression. Bad students’ aggression was rated as more serious and warranting more severe punishment than was good students’ aggression. However, teachers also rated good students’ physically aggressive behavior as more serious and warranting more severe forms of punishment than their relationally aggressive behavior. Results are discussed in relation to previous findings on teachers’ responses to students’ aggression. KEYWORDS teachers, attitudes, children, aggression, peer victimization With 60% or more of school-age children self-identified as having been a victim of bullying at some time (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop, 2001), bullying has become an area of great concern in the field of school psychology. Both bullies and victims experience a variety of psychosocial problems, from poor school adjustment in the short term to persisting problems in adulthood, such as antisocial behavior and depression (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariépy, 1989; Crick, 1996; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop, 2001; Address correspondence to Samantha T. Rogowicz, Department of Psychology, St. John’s University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY 11439, USA. E-mail: samantha.trilling11@ stjohns.edu 355

Downloaded by [Tamara Del Vecchio] at 09:45 30 October 2014

356

S. T. Rogowicz et al.

Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1993; Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Rigby & Slee, 1991, 1993; Smith & Brain, 2000). Moreover, evidence indicates that there is a cyclical relation between peer victimization and adjustment problems over time (Hodges & Perry, 1999; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000). For example, Hodges and Perry (1999) found that internalizing problems, physical weakness, and peer rejection uniquely contributed to gains in victimization over time, and initial victimization predicted increases in later internalizing symptoms, suggesting the temporal stability of adjustment problems associated with victimization. Most bullying occurs in schools (Kasen, Berenson, Cohen, & Johnson, 2004), and within the social context of school—thus teachers are most likely to be exposed to an aggressive incident (Smith & Sharp, 1994; Smith & Thompson, 1991). Therefore, identifying predictors of teachers’ responses to student aggression is imperative to preventing negative developmental outcomes in students and maintaining a safe, supportive school environment. A considerable amount of evidence has been found regarding the negative effects of aggression and bullying for individual aggressors and victims (Boivin, Hymel, & Bukowski, 1995; Egan & Perry, 1998; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Nansel et al., 2001), and the school climate as a whole (Klein, Cornell, & Konold, 2012), but comparatively little is known about teachers’ attitudes and responses toward the aggressors. Teachers who intervene appropriately to acts of aggression provide students with a safe environment in which aggression and bullying of all types is treated as unacceptable (Doll, Song, & Siemers, 2004). Teachers who exhibit a permissive response are likely to perpetuate the victims’ feeling of being alienated and helpless (Pepler, Craig, Ziegler, & Charach, 1994) and to inadvertently communicate to the aggressor that their behavior is acceptable. Moreover, teachers do not share the same definition of bullying as do students; therefore, teachers do not respond to all bullying situations in which students feel victimized. For example, Pepler and colleagues (1994) found that although 85% of teachers reported intervening in bullying “always” or “often,” only 35% of students reported teachers intervening in bullying situations. Perhaps teachers have different conceptualizations of what constitutes aggressive behavior, and therefore show a lack of appropriate response to situations in which students feel victimized. For example, Boulton (1997) found that about 25% of teachers do not include name calling, spreading rumors, intimidating by staring, and taking other people’s belongings in their definitions of aggression and bullying. Teachers and school administrators may consider these types of aggressive behaviors, often referred to as relational aggression (Crick, 1995), normative for adolescents (e.g., “Middle school kids are just mean”) and transient (e.g., “They usually grow out of it;” Jeffrey, Miller, & Linn, 2001; Yoon, Barton, & Taiariol, 2004). Moreover, aggressive behaviors that are less overt are more likely to be overlooked or taken less seriously than easily identifiable physically aggressive behaviors.


Teachers’ Responses to Aggression

357

Unlike witnessing a student punch another student, with relational aggression the harm to the victim and the victim’s distress might not be as easily observable (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000). Thus teachers may ignore relational aggression because they believe it to be “normative” or perhaps relational aggression is not as easily detectable as other forms of aggression. In either case, determining whether teachers’ perceptions of the seriousness of and severity of punishment warranted for relational aggression differs from physical aggression is important for developing teacher-directed interventions. Practicing school psychologists are in an ideal position to assume leadership roles in violence and bullying prevention and intervention (Furlong, Morrison, & Pavelski, 2000), particularly by working with teachers. Thus an understanding of the factors that influence teachers’ perceptions and responses to bullying behaviors can inform school psychologists on the development and implementation of such interventions. An aggressor’s sex might influence teachers’ judgments of the severity of the aggressive act and the degree of punishment endorsed, such that less gender normative behaviors are likely to be perceived as more serious. Boys tend to enact more direct aggression than girls, but there is little gender difference in the prevalence of indirect aggression (e.g., gossiping, social exclusion; Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). However, despite the rather comparable occurrence of relational aggression across gender, teachers view girls as more indirectly aggressive than boys (Card et al., 2008). Horn (2004) noted that portrayals in the popular media mainly generate a stereotypical picture of gossiping, backbiting, and manipulation and “try to make the case that this type of aggression is inherently female” (p. 314), which Card and colleagues (2008) suggested may contribute to the perception of gender differences in indirect aggression among teachers. Perceptions of what is normative behavior for girls and boys may influence teachers’ attitudes regarding the seriousness of problematic behaviors in boys and girls. For example, Kokkinos, Panayiotou, and Davazoglou (2004) found that sex stereotypes influenced novice teachers’ attitudes about bullying and aggressive behaviors, such that externalizing behaviors (e.g., physically abusing the teacher) were seen as most serious when occurring among girls, whereas internalizing behaviors (e.g., crying, suspiciousness) were viewed most serious when occurring among boys. Thus teachers perceived students’ nonstereotypical gender behavior (i.e., aggression for girls and crying for boys) as more serious than their stereotypical gender behavior. Therefore, physical aggression may be perceived to be more of an anomaly in girls and thought of as a more serious transgression than boys’ physical and relational acts of aggression. Whether a teacher had a favorable or unfavorable impression of a student might influence the teacher’s perception of the aggressive incident. For example, Nesdale and Pickering (2006) analyzed teacher responses to peer-to-peer physically aggressive scenarios and found that children’s perceived “goodness” (i.e., honest, obedient, polite) or “badness” (i.e., deceitful,


358


disobedient, rude) influenced how well liked children were by the teacher following the aggressive act and how much causal responsibility they were considered to bear for it, such that as the teachers’ liking for the aggressive group of boys increased, their perceived causal responsibility decreased. It is interesting that “goodness” of the aggressors did not affect the severity of punishment for physical aggression recommended by the teachers. In contrast with physical aggression, the nature and effect of relational aggression is less clear. Because of the more ambiguous nature of these acts, students’ goodness may have a greater effect on teachers’ responses to relational aggression as teachers may be more apt to rely on their impressions of a student to evaluate the seriousness of their behavior. Gender stereotypes may also interact with teachers’ impressions of a student in discerning the seriousness of aggressive behaviors. For example, teachers might make different evaluations of “good” female students versus “good” male students. Spilt, Koomen, and Jak (2012) suggested that the qualities that typically describe a “good student” tend to be female-typical behaviors such as cooperation, compliance, and attentiveness more than stereotypical male behaviors such as liveliness, impulsivity, and autonomy. Therefore, it is possible that a male “good student” might be attributed more value by teachers and occasional transgressions might be overlooked more willingly. Overall, there has been a lack of attention in the literature with regard to how gender may interact with other teachers’ impressions about students might influence their perception of a physically or relationally aggressive act by that student and the actions they think are warranted in response. Overall, we examined the extent to which teachers’ judgments are influenced by whether the aggressive incident is an act of physical or relational aggression, and a student aggressor is a male or female and characterized as “good” or “bad.” We hypothesized several main effects. Specifically, we predicted that acts of physical aggression would be perceived as more severe and warranting more severe forms of punishment than acts of relational aggression. We also predicted that teachers would perceive female student physical aggression, considering it as less gender normative behavior, as generally more serious than male student physical and relational aggression. In addition, we hypothesized that aggressive acts committed by students described to be “good” would be rated as less severe and warranting less severe forms of punishment than aggressive acts committed by students described as “bad.” Consequently, we examined whether aggression type and student goodness reputation interact in predicting teacher response; no data exist directly evaluating this possible interaction. We hypothesized that for “good” students, relationally aggressive acts would be perceived as less severe and warranting less severe forms of punishment than physically aggressive acts. In contrast, the severity and punishment of relational and physical acts would be rated similarly for students described to be “bad.”


359

METHOD


Participants Thirty-one teachers from a middle school (e.g., fifth through eighth grade) in the Northeastern United States participated in the present study, reflecting a 65% response rate. Of the 31 participants 68% (n = 21) were female and 32% (n = 10) were male. The teachers’ level of education ranged from a bachelor’s degree to a master’s degree plus credit. Furthermore, the participants had an average of 15.8 years (range = 1–32 years) teaching experience. This middle school served students from predominantly middle-income families as measured by the low percent of students within the district who received free lunches (i.e., 13%). In addition, the New York State Department of Education (2008) indicated that the demographic breakdown of the students in the district was 65% Caucasian, 34% Hispanic or Latino, and 1% African American.

Measures The Peer Aggression Questionnaire was developed for this study to assess teachers’ responses to student aggression toward their peers. Teachers were presented with eight hypothetical vignettes that depict four acts of physical aggression from one student to another (e.g., “. . .. she suddenly slaps the other student”) and four acts of relational aggression involving a student saying something hurtful to another (e.g., “During today’s trivia-game lesson, a student on Madison’s team calls out the wrong answer. Madison then yells, “God, you’re such a moron! Why did they have to put you on MY team?”). There were two vignettes for each type of aggression (e.g., physical and relational) that described the aggressor as “good” (e.g., respectful, completes his assignments on time, a pleasure to teach) and two vignettes that described the aggressor as “bad” (e.g., disrespectful, immature, class clown). Therefore, there were four distinct pairings of aggression and student goodness (i.e., a physical aggression and “good” student pairing, a physical aggression and “bad” student pairing, a relational aggression and “good” student pairing, and a relational aggression and “bad” student pairing). Gender was balanced across type of aggression (e.g., physical and relational) and student goodness (e.g., “good” and “bad”) by using four commonly known female names (e.g., Jessica, Madison, Samantha, and Erika) and four commonly known male names (e.g., Adam, Joey, Seth, and George). Following each of the vignettes, teachers were asked to rate how “good” and “likeable” the student aggressor is using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very) to check that the goodness manipulation had the desired effects. Using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all serious/severe) to 7 (very serious/severe), teachers were also asked to rate the seriousness of the aggressor’s behavior and the severity of the

360


TABLE 1 Description of Items Item number 1 2 3 4

Item content How How How How

good do you think [student name] generally is? likeable is [student name]? serious is [student name]’s behavior? severe should the punishment be?


Note. Responses were reported on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all serious/severe) to 7 (very serious/severe).

punishment they think is warranted for the act (Table 1). Endorsement of the seriousness of the behavior and the severity of the punishment was calculated by averaging the 1–7 rating of each teacher’s response for each type of aggressive scenario (physical and relational), student portrayal as “good” and “bad,” and for both male and female student behavior.

Procedure Each teacher was provided a consent form, which included the explanation as to the purpose of the study and stated that participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous, and the peer aggression questionnaire. The questionnaire took approximately 15 min to complete. To ensure anonymity, teachers placed completed questionnaires in a sealed box in the faculty lounge. Research staff collected the sealed box 2 weeks after surveys were distributed.

Data Analysis We conducted two 2 × 2 repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for ratings of seriousness and severity of punishment for physically and relationally aggressive acts of “good” and “bad” students. We also conducted paired t-tests to compare the seriousness and severity of acts committed by male and female students. Using GPower 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), we estimated that 34 participants would be needed to detect a significant medium effect of f = .25 (Cohen, 1988; power 80%, p < .05). Our sample of 31 participants approaches but falls short of the sample size estimated. Thus, we also included effect sizes to provide measures of the magnitude of the observed effect. Conventional hypothesis testing based on significance levels has been criticized for treating questions as all-ornothing effects depending on whether p values exceed the critical limit (Chow, 1988; Thompson, 2002). Therefore, our results should be interpreted with consideration to both our p values and effect sizes.

361



RESULTS Patterns of missing data, outliers, skewness, and kurtosis were examined in the data. No data was missing or needed to be transformed to meet the assumptions of normality. We conducted paired t-tests on the “goodness” and “likeable” scores for the “good” and “bad” students to ensure that the students reflected their intended depictions. Significant differences between the “good” and “bad” students on goodness, t(30) = 10.97, p < .001, and likeability, t(30) = 10.71, p < .001 were found. The teachers rated “good” students as significantly higher on goodness (M = 5.45, SD = 0.93), t(30) = 10.97, p < .001, and more likeable (M = 5.38, SD = 0.91), t(30) = 10.71, p < .001, than “bad” students on goodness (M = 2.38, SD = 0.97) and likeability (M = 2.51, SD = 0.95). A 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA for ratings of seriousness of punishment for physically and relationally aggressive acts of “good” and “bad” students indicated a significant main effect of both aggression type, F(1, 30) = 7.02, p < .05, partial η2 = .19, and goodness, F(1, 30) = 13.78, p < .05, partial η2 = .32, on teachers’ ratings of seriousness of the aggression (Table 2) . The teachers rated physically aggressive acts as significantly more serious (M = 5.49, SD = 1.09) than acts of relational aggression (M = 5.12, SD = .91). The teachers rated acts committed by “bad” students as significantly more serious (M = 5.63, SD = 1.06) than acts perpetrated by “good” students (M = 4.98, SD = 1.03). Furthermore, paired t-tests revealed TABLE 2 Teacher Responses to Aggressive Behavior by Aggression Type and Student Reputation M

SD

F(30)

ηp 2

p

7.02

.19

.01

13.78

.32

.00

3.98

.12

.06

6.56

.18

.02

17.42

.37

.00

7.02

.19

.01

Seriousness of the act Aggression type Physical aggression Relational aggression Reputation Good students Bad students Aggression Type × Reputation

5.49 5.12

1.09 0.91

4.98 5.63

1.03 1.05

Severity of the punishment Aggression Type Physical aggression Relational aggression Reputation Good students Bad students Aggression Type × Reputation

5.25 4.87

1.09 0.84

4.73 5.40

0.99 0.98

Note. Partial eta squared (ηp 2) is a measure of the effect size of the types of aggression, reputations, and their interactions on the seriousness of the act and severity of the punishment.


362


a significant difference between the seriousness of acts committed by male and female students, t(30) = 2.79, p < .01. Specifically, teachers rated acts committed by female students as significantly more serious (M = 5.48, SD = 1.11) than acts perpetrated by male students (M = 5.14, SD = 0.84). There was a modest, but nonsignificant interaction effect of aggressive type and goodness, F(1, 30) = 3.98, p = .06, on ratings of seriousness of the aggression (Table 2). However, additional analysis indicated that teachers rated the physically aggressive behaviors of “good” students as significantly more serious than their relationally aggressive behaviors, t(30) = 2.92, p < .01, and there was no significant difference between ratings of seriousness of the aggressive behaviors of “bad” students, t(30) = –.82, p = .42. We conducted separate 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVAs for ratings of severity of punishment for physically and relationally aggressive acts of “good” and “bad” students (Table 2). As expected, there was a significant main effect of both aggressive type, F(1, 30) = 6.56, p < .05, partial η2 = .18, and goodness, F(1, 30) = 17.42, p < .001, partial η2 = .37, on teachers’ ratings of severity of punishment. The teachers rated physically aggressive acts as warranting significantly more severe forms of punishment (M = 5.25, SD = 1.09) than acts of relational aggression (M = 4.87, SD = 0.84). The teachers rated acts committed by “bad” students as warranting more severe forms of punishment (M = 5.40, SD = 0.98) than acts perpetrated by “good” students (M = 4.73, SD = 0.99). Paired t-tests revealed a significant difference between the severity of punishment for acts committed by male and female students, t(30) = 2.98, p < .01. Specifically, teachers rated acts committed by female students as warranting more severe forms of punishment (M = 5.20, SD = 1.01) than acts perpetrated by male students (M = 4.92, SD = 0.81). There was also a significant interaction effect of aggressive type and goodness, F(1, 30) = 7.02, p < .05, partial η2 = .19, on ratings of severity of punishment (Table 2 and Figure 1). Teachers rated the physically aggressive behaviors of “good” students as warranting significantly more severe forms of punishment than their relationally aggressive behaviors, t(30) = 3.30, p < .01. In addition, there was no significant difference between ratings of severity of punishment for the aggressive behaviors of “bad” students, t(30) = –.49, p = .63.

DISCUSSION This study investigated teachers’ attitudes regarding the seriousness and severity of punishment for students’ physical and relational acts of aggression. In particular, the study aimed to explore whether characteristics of the aggressors influenced teachers’ subjective evaluations and responses to student aggression. Exploration of the factors that might influence teachers’

363

Teachers’ Responses to Aggression 5.5 5.3 5.1 Physical

4.9

Relational 4.7 4.5 4.3


Good

Bad

FIGURE 1 The interaction of aggression type by student reputation on severity of punishment.

attitudes toward aggression can be used to inform teacher training regarding preventative and intervention efforts. The results of this study support previous findings that teachers view relational aggression as less serious and as warranting less severe forms of punishment than physical aggression (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006; Boulton, 1997; Craig, Bell, & Leschied, 2011). One possible explanation is that teachers are more likely to consider relational aggression a more normative behavior, particularly in middle school, than physical aggression (Jeffrey et al., 2001; Vernberg & Gamm, 2003; Yoon et al., 2004). Consequently, schools may be more likely to respond to physical aggression and to dismiss relational aggression as a typical part of child development. Alternatively, teachers may view relational aggression as a less serious form of aggression because they cannot easily assess the harm to the victim. Unfortunately, relationally aggressive acts often result in less overt outcomes than do physical assaults. For example, the teacher who witnesses one child punching another can readily see the blood running down the victim’s nose. In contrast, the lack of visible effects from relational aggression may prevent teachers from taking as severe a course of action (Craig et al., 2000). In this study, the effects to the victims were not described in the vignettes. Thus teachers’ beliefs and expectations regarding harm to the victim may have influenced their ratings of physical aggression as more serious than relational aggression. Female student physical aggression was perceived by this sample of teachers as more serious and warranting more severe forms of punishment than was male student aggression. Teachers may respond more harshly to female student physical aggression because they perceive it as a less female gender normative behavior. Although the prevalence of relational aggression is similar across gender, teachers tend to perceive it as a female stereotypical behavior (Card et al., 2008). Teachers may be likely to view


364


physical aggression as a typical boy behavior and as a more nuanced, perhaps problematic, girl behavior. Furthermore, teachers have been found to advocate independent coping strategies (e.g., problem solving, “working it out on their own”) more frequently for boys than girls (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Pelletier, 2008). Teachers may feel that boys do not need to be punished as severely for behaving aggressively because it is typical boy behavior that can be resolved among themselves. However, teachers may think that girls should be punished more harshly for their physically aggressive acts because physically aggressive girls deviate from the way girls are expected to behave and should be punished for the inappropriateness of these behaviors. We might expect teachers’ attitudes and responses to male and female aggressive behavior to change over time reflecting changes in our societal views on gender normative behavior. Findings from the present study suggest that teachers are influenced by a student’s reputation when evaluating their transgressions. Teachers’ subjective evaluation of a student as “good” or “bad” in an aggressive act influenced how serious teachers thought the aggressive act was and the degree of punishment they thought should be in response. Aggressive acts committed by “good” students were rated as less severe and warranting less severe forms of punishment than were those perpetrated by “bad” students. These findings were consistent with Nesdale and Pickering’s (2006) results that teachers attributed less responsibility to those physical aggressors they perceived as “good,” suggesting that the teachers were influenced by the aggressors’ reputation when deciding on the seriousness of the students’ behavior. Furthermore, the teachers viewed the seriousness of physically and relationally aggressive acts differently for “good” students, such that physically aggressive acts were perceived as more serious and warranting more severe forms of punishment. For “bad” students, results indicated that teachers rate physically and relationally aggressive acts similarly in terms of seriousness and severity of punishment. It is interesting that a student’s gender was not found to interact with their reputation as “good” or “bad” on teachers’ perceptions of the seriousness of their aggressive behaviors or the punishment warranted. Therefore, teachers may evaluate “good” or “bad” students’ transgressions in a gender-neutral manner without being further influenced by their perceptions of gender normative behavior. Teachers may also rely on an individual student’s past behavior pattern when determining the proper punishment for the student’s present misbehaviors. This may be particularly true for relationally aggressive acts because teachers experience greater uncertainty and discomfort assessing the seriousness and severity of punishment for these behaviors than for physically aggressive behaviors. If teachers rely more on their own judgment to evaluate relationally aggressive scenarios, and they have an impression of the aggressor as “bad,” then they may treat the students’ physically and relationally aggressive behavior as similarly severe. “Good” students’


365

relationally aggressive acts are likely perceived as minor transgressions that can be overlooked in light of their generally well-mannered behavior. Overall, these findings indicate that without a clear response protocol for relationally aggressive acts, teachers are more likely to rely on their previous impressions of a student in evaluating the behavior and deciding on a course of action.


Strengths and Limitations In evaluating the significance of these findings, it is helpful to consider the limitations of the present study. A small sample representing one community raises questions about whether results will generalize to other communities of different socioeconomic and ethnic compositions. In general, studies with small sample sizes tend to have low statistical power, and, therefore, a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, and a reduced likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. However, a small sample is more problematic when researchers fail to find significant outcomes because it implies that there was not sufficient statistical power to detect the effects reliably. Many of the findings from the present study were statistically significant, so there is a greater likelihood that the sample size was large enough to interpret the effects reliably. Another limitation of the present study is that no data were gathered regarding the teachers’ racial background and we did not manipulate the children’s race in the vignettes. Teachers’ own racial background and/or the racial backgrounds of student aggressors and victims may influence teachers’ beliefs and strategies regarding student aggression. Secondly, this study used hypothetical vignettes to evaluate teachers’ perceptions of aggressive behaviors. While it has been argued that vignettes are the most appropriate method for understanding teachers’ cognitive and affective responses to specific incidents (Poulou, 2001), no definitive method exists by which to accurately rate the seriousness of an incident of aggression (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). Thus, we do not know whether responses to hypothetical scenarios reveal how teachers actually would respond in a reallife situation. The hypothetical vignettes used single items to measure teachers’ perceptions of the seriousness of acts of aggression and the severity of punishment. The use of multiple-item scales could increase reliability and provide a better approximation of data as it allows for a greater variation in response patterns (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007; Churchill, 1979; DeVellis, 2003; Diamantopoulos, Sarstedt, Fuchs, Wilczynski, & Kaiser, 2012). However, there are also several important advantages to the use of single-item scales. Singleitem measures have the advantage of being briefer and easier for participants to complete than longer, more burdensome multiple-item questionnaires (e.g., Peer Conflict Scale; see Marsee et al., 2011). Furthermore, the validity for single-item measures has been established in the literature on various


366


constructs and in other busy settings (e.g., clinical practice). For example, Zimmerman and colleagues (2006) developed ultra-brief, single-item assessments of symptom severity, psychological functioning, and quality of life in a sample of psychiatric outpatients and found that the items were significantly correlated with the total scores of longer measures of the same constructs (p < .001). Furthermore, the single-item measures significantly discriminated between depressed patients in full remission, in partial remission, and in a current depressive episode (p < .001). In another study, Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009) compared the criterion validity of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised to a single-item measure of perceived victimization from bullying and found high correlations of the single-item measure with both the total Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised and scores on its three underlying factors: personal bullying, work-related bullying, and physically intimidating forms of bullying. Despite these limitations, this study provides evidence that teachers perceive the seriousness and severity of punishment for physically aggressive acts as greater than relationally aggressive acts, acts committed by female aggressors as more than those committed by male aggressors, and acts committed by “bad” students as exceeding those committed by “good” students. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of all three of these variables on teachers’ perceptions of aggressive behaviors, and to examine the interaction of “goodness” and type of aggression (physical and relational) on seriousness and severity of punishment.

Future Directions This study provided evidence that teachers’ perceptions of students’ acts of aggression are affected by certain student characteristics and situational factors. However, sex differences may be another important source of variation regarding teacher attitudes towards aggression (Boulton, 1997; Craig et al., 2000). Although Borg and Falzon (1989) found that male teachers were more likely to rate bullying as more serious than female teachers, Boulton (1997) reported that female teachers expressed more negative attitudes towards bullying than male teachers. However, Craig and colleagues (2000) found that biological sex was unrelated to teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. Results from the present study indicated that female teachers rated the aggressors’ behaviors as more serious and warranting more severe punishment than male teachers. Further research is needed to explore whether male and female teachers perceive aggression and bullying behavior differently, so that interventions can target their different conceptualizations and treatment of aggressive behavior. The characteristics of the aggressor might also affect teachers’ perceptions of the aggressive acts. The present study found that students’ depiction as “good” or “bad” based on their classroom manners and performance



367

affected teachers’ perceptions of their aggressive acts. Other characteristics of the aggressors might also affect teachers’ evaluations, such as their social competence and physical attractiveness. For example, Nesdale and Pickering (2006) found that teachers’ responses to hypothetical vignettes indicated that they would punish popular children (i.e., children described as well-liked by their peers) more than unpopular children; the authors suggest these results reflect the teachers’ concerns that popular children might influence the behaviors of other children. Teachers have also been found to associate physical attractiveness with children’s social status (Maag, Vasa, Kramer, & Torrey, 1991), but the effect of physical attractiveness of the aggressor on teacher’s perceptions of the aggression has not yet been explored. Furthermore, future research should manipulate “good” versus “bad” victims, in a similar manner as “good” versus “bad” aggressors, to evaluate whether teachers perceive the seriousness of aggressive behaviors differently depending upon their feelings about the victim. For example, Pellegrini (1998) discussed the “aggressive victim,” defined as youth who retaliate with reactive aggression, in comparison to the “passive victim.” Like bullies, the aggressive victims are aggressive but their aggression is reactive, not instrumental; passive victims are not aggressive (Pellegrini, 1998). Teachers are likely to consider both the initial act of aggression and the victims’ attitude and response to the aggressive act in determining the seriousness of the aggressive act and the actions that they should take in response. It is interesting that Nesdale and Pickering (2006) found that the more the teachers liked the aggressive group, the more the victim was assigned causal responsibility for the aggressive incident. Therefore, teachers’ perceptions of aggressive behaviors seem to be affected by how they view the particular aggressors and victims in each unique situation. It would be important in future research to investigate teachers’ responses to aggression scenarios that are specific to their particular experiences with students. Peets, Hodges, and Salmivalli (2008) used a sociometric nomination procedure to identify specific target peers (liked, disliked, and neutral) for their vignettes and found that children tended to interpret the aggressive behaviors enacted by disliked and liked peers differently (i.e., giving the “benefit of the doubt” to friends). Teachers’ feelings about particular students in their classrooms may differentially affect their perception of acts of aggression. Hypothetical vignettes may fail to capture certain aspects of students’ personalities or behaviors, which may thereby limit our understanding of the factors that influence teachers’ perceptions of aggressive behavior. Furthermore, future research should supplement these measures of teacher attitudes with objective observations of intervention behaviors, such as playground and classroom observation, to test for discrepancies between teachers’ stated beliefs and attitudes and their actual behaviors. A behavioral assessment of teacher responses to aggressive situations, in addition to hypothetical vignettes describing aggressive acts by real students


368


in their classrooms, would discern whether teachers’ stated perceptions of aggressive behavior correlate with their actions in a real-life situation. This relationship between teachers’ thoughts about the aggressor and the victim in each situation might also be influenced by characteristics inherit in the relationship between aggressor and victim dyads. For example, it is conceivable that teachers may rate girls’ aggression toward boys and vice versa differently than same sex aggressor and victim dyads. Russell and Owens (1999) found that girls more often directed physical aggression to boys than to girls, but more often directed their verbal and indirect aggression to other girls than to boys. Therefore, it is conceivable that teachers may view girls’ acts of physical aggression toward boys as more “normative” and less serious than acts of physical aggression toward other girls. Future studies could manipulate the gender of both aggressors and victims to determine whether teachers differentially view same-sex versus cross-sex aggression.

Practice Implications Practicing school psychologists are in an ideal position to assume leadership roles in violence and bullying prevention and intervention (Furlong et al., 2000). Historically, school psychologists’ primary roles have involved three areas: assessment, consultation, and intervention (Merrell, Ervin, & Gimpel, 2006). However, in recent years, school psychologists have become more proactive in addressing school violence, promoting safe schools, and providing mental health services in the schools (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) recognizes that bullying and relational aggression are forms of school violence that can jeopardize the psychological and emotional well-being of children and adolescents, and encourages school psychologists to take a leadership role in developing ways to reduce school violence (NASP, 2006). School psychologists have been actively involved in finding solutions to bullying and implementing bullying prevention programs, which is consistent with NASP’s seventh domain of professional practice: prevention, crisis intervention, and mental health (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins, 2008). The National Regional Education Laboratory (Brewster & Railsback, 2001) emphasized that school psychologists are in an appropriate position to encourage and inform school staff about the adoption of antibullying policies and curricula. Training staff and providing continuous support have been shown to enhance teachers’ abilities to handle bullying problems (Alsaker, 2004; Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004). However, school psychologists first need to have an awareness of the factors that influence teachers’ attitudes toward bullying in order to optimally target and enhance their education and prevention efforts. The findings herein suggest that teachers’ attributions of the seriousness of aggressive behaviors and their consequent disciplinary actions


369


are influenced by their impressions of the aggressors, as well as the nature of the aggressive acts. School psychologists can use this knowledge to develop effective strategies for informing teachers about what constitutes bullying behaviors, and strategies for prevention and management. School psychologists’ investment in improving teachers’ understanding of what constitutes bullying behavior, and how it can be effectively managed, may ultimately be the support teachers need to decrease the frequency of these acts. Further pursuits need to be made to support school psychologists’ efforts in working with teachers to alter their perceptions of aggression and bullying behavior, and their responses, to optimally promote students’ psychosocial, emotional, and academic development.

REFERENCES Alsaker, F. D. (2004). Bernese program against victimization in kindergarten and elementary school. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can intervention be? (pp. 289–306). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios. Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219–231. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219 Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175–184. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175 Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The roles of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization by peers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765–786. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006830 Borg, M., & Falzon, J. (1989). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of pupils’ undesirable behaviors. Educational Studies, 15, 251–60. doi:10.1080/0305569890150304 Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ view on bullying: definitions, attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 223–233. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01239.x Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2001). Schoolwide prevention of bullying. By Request Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Gariépy, J. (1989). Growth and aggression. I. Childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320–330. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.2.320 Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x Chow, S. L. (1988). Significance test or effect size? Psychological Bulletin, 103, 105–110. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.105 Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73. doi:10.2307/3150876


370


Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Craig, K., Bell, D., & Leschied, A. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge and attitudes regarding school-based bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 21–33. Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards bullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21, 5–21. doi:10.1177/0143034300211001 Crick, N. R. (1995). Relational aggression: the role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology 7, 313–322. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006520 Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327. doi:10.2307/1131625 DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Diamanduros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, S. J. (2008). The role of school psychologists in the assessment, prevention, and intervention of cyberbullying. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 693–704. doi:10.1002/pits.20335 Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P., & Kaiser, S. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 434–449. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3 Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Classroom ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 161–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.299 Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23, 24–44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G∗ Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Furlong, M., Morrison, G., & Pavelski, R. (2000). Trends in school psychology for the 21st century: Influences of school violence on professional change. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 81–90. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(200001)37:13.0.CO;2-O Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Personal and interpersonal consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 677–685. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.677 Horn, S. S. (2004). Mean girls or cultural stereotypes? Human Development, 47, 314–320. doi:10.1159/000079160 Jeffrey, L. R., Miller, D., & Linn, M. (2001). Middle school bullying as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of others. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 143–156. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_09



371

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and social functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349–359. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.2.349 Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). The effects of school climate on changes in aggressive behavior and other behaviors related to bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 187–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between bullying, school climate, and student risk behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 154–169. doi:10.1037/a0029350 Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.1996.tb01797.x Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Pelletier, M. (2008). Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping with peer victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 431–453. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.07.005 Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Wardrop, J. (2001). Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72, 134–151. doi:10.1111/1467-8624. 00270 Kokkinos, C. M., Panayiotou, G., & Davazoglou, A. M. (2004). Perceived seriousness of pupils’ undesirable behaviours: The student teachers’ perspective. Educational Psychology, 24, 109–120. doi:10.1080/0144341032000146458 Maag, J. W., Vasa, S. F., Kramer, J. J., & Torrey, G. K. (1991). Teachers’ perceptions of factors contributing to children’s social status. Psychological Reports, 69, 831–836. doi:10.2466/PR0.69.7.831-836 Marsee, M. A., Barry, C. T., Childs, K. K., Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Muñoz, L. C., . . ., Lau, K. S. L. (2011). Assessing the forms and functions of aggression using self-report: factor structure and invariance of the peer conflict scale in youths. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 792–804. doi:10.1037/a0023369 Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Gimpel, G. A. (2006). School psychology for the 21st century: Foundations and practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association of psychosocial adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2006). NASP position statement on school violence. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/ positionpapers/schoolviolence.pdf Nesdale, D., & Pickering, K. (2006). Teachers’ reactions to children’s aggression. Social Development, 15, 109–127. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00332.x New York State Department of Education. (2008). New York State School and District Report Cards for School Year 2006–2007. Retrieved from https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-rc/2007/a#/AOR-2007-580905020000.pdf Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully Busters: A psychoeducational intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students.


372


Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 259–267. doi:10.1002/j.15566678.2004.tb00309.x Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Peets, K., Hodges, E. V. E., & Salmivalli, C. (2008). Affect-congruent social-cognitive evaluations and behaviors. Child Development, 79, 170–185. doi:10.1111/j.14678624.2007.01118.x Pellegrini, A. D. (1998). Bullies and victims in school: A review and call for research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 165–176. doi:10.1016/S01933973(99)80034-3 Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 47, 142–164. doi:10.1353/mpq.2001.0004 Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13(2), 95–110. Retrieved from http://www.cjcmh.com Poulou, M. (2001). The role of vignettes in the research of emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 6(1), 50–62. doi:10.1177/1363275201006001005 Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes towards victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. doi:10.1080/00224545.1991.9924646 Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 33–43. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116 Russell, A., & Owens, L. (1999). Peer estimates of school-aged boys’ and girls’ aggression to same- and cross-sex targets. Social Development, 8, 364–379. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00101 Smith, P. K., & Brain, P. (2000). Bullying in schools: Lessons from two decades of research. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 1–9. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10982337 (2000)26:13.0.CO;2-7 Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London, UK: Routledge. Smith, P. K., & Thompson, D. (1991). Practical approaches to bullying. London, UK: David Fulton. Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. Y., & Jak, S. (2012). Are boys better off with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender match in teacher–student relationship quality. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 363–378. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.12.002 Thompson, B. (2002). ‘Statistical,’ ‘practical,’ and ‘clinical’: How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider?. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 64–71. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00167.x Vernberg, E. M., & Gamm, B. K. (2003). Resistance to violence prevention interventions in schools: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5, 125–138. doi:10.1023/A:1022983502393 Yoon, J. S., Barton, E., & Taiariol, J. (2004). Relational aggression in middle school: Educational implications of developmental research. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 303–318. doi:10.1177/0272431604265681


373

Zimmerman, M., Ruggero, C. J., Chelminski, I., Young, D., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., . . ., & Attiullah, N. (2006). Developing brief scales for use in clinical practice: The reliability and validity of single-item self-report measures of depression symptom severity, psychosocial impairment due to depression, and quality of life. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67, 1536–1541. doi:10.4088/JCP.v67n1007

APPENDIX


Hypothetical Vignettes 1. Joey has always been respectful and completes his assignments on time and to his best ability. He is a pleasure to teach. Today, while monitoring 6th period study hall, you hear what sounds like something being thrown and you look over to find Joey leaning over a boy who is sitting by himself. Suddenly you witness Joey lunge at the other student and punch him in the arm. 2. Jessica has been unmanageable all year long. She is constantly interrupting your lesson by talking and telling other students jokes, often of a highly inappropriate nature. Today you see Jessica in the hallway talking to another girl when she suddenly slaps the other student across the face. 3. If you had it your way, all your students would be like Madison. She is bright, considerate and a positive example for other students who look up to her. She often volunteers to lead group exercises and today is no exception. During today’s trivia-game lesson, a student on Madison’s team calls out the wrong answer. Madison then yells, “God, you’re such a moron! Why did they have to put you on MY team?” 4. Seth has given you a hard time all year long. He is disrespectful and immature and likes to think of himself as the class clown. He is constantly disrupting lessons. During class one day, you turn around from writing on the board to see Seth kick a boy next to him who had been taking notes. 5. Adam is lazy and makes little effort to complete assignments. He responds to punishments as a badge of honor, telling other students that he’d rather sit through detention than boring school lessons. Last week during a field trip, you noticed a few children had lagged behind on the museum tour. When you caught up to them, you saw Adam pointing and laughing at another boy. “You’re such a loser!” Adam yelled. 6. George displays exceptional maturity, leadership, and a desire to better himself through education. He is an unusually charismatic student for his age. Yesterday you saw George lean over and whisper something to another boy who had been reading at the desk alongside him. Afterward the child ran up to your desk to tell you that George had called him a “sissy-boy.”

374



7. Erika is extremely antagonistic and has tried to engage in power struggles with you all year long. Despite frequent assignments of detention, she continues to try your patience during class. Last Friday during recess, you saw a group of girls huddled in the courtyard around Erika and another girl who had been jumping rope. “God, I can’t believe your mother lets you out of the house looking like that. . .she must be trash just like you,” Erika laughed. 8. You like Samantha very much. She is cooperative, involved in school, gets good grades, and is perceived by other students as being friendly. After school you go to use the bathroom in the girl’s locker room. As you enter, you see Samantha sneak up behind another girl and push her into her locker.