Page 111 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 111
venting bullying: peer culture as the crucial developmental context in adolescence
adolescents, Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004; 2%–3% in a sample of Finnish
adolescents, Saarento et al., 2013). Among school-level characteristics, the
school climate with unclear disciplinary procedures and a higher propor-
tion of boys at school (Khoury-Kassabri, 2004; Ma, 2002) were found to in-
crease victimisation, whereas a positive school climate and a higher lev-
el of parental involvement (Ma, 2002) as well as students’ perceptions of
teachers’ disapproving attitudes toward bullying (Saarento et al. 2013) were
found to work as protective factors. The results of a study that investigated
the predictors of victimisation and bullying on a large sample of Slovenian
adolescents (Košir et al., 2020) revealed no significant differences between
schools in levels of victimisation or bullying behaviour. Similarly, second-
ary analyses of data obtained in the international studies TIMSS 2011 and
TIMSS 2015 indicated that only a small amount of variance in victimisa-
tion could be explained by the differences between schools (18%–4%); this
amount is smaller for older students (Košir & Japelj Pavešič, 2020). It was
also found that school size and the degree of problematic behaviour at
school as reported by school principals do not predict victimisation.
Investigating the classroom-level factors of victimisation and bully-
ing seems more promising. Previous studies (e.g. Garandeau et al., 2014;
Košir et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2020; Saarento et al., 2013) showed that class-
room-level factors (i.e. antibullying attitudes, teacher attitudes, outcome
expectations when defending victims, strong classroom hierarchies) most-
ly explain around 10% of the variance in performing and experiencing bul-
lying. These studies have identified certain classroom characteristics that
predict bullying and victimisation. Among protective factors, classroom
attitudes that do not approve of bullying and students’ perception of disap-
proving teachers’ attitudes toward bullying (Saarento et al., 3013) were re-
ported. The expectation of negative social consequences when defending
victims (Saarento et al., 2013), strong classroom pro-bully norms (Košir et
al., 2020) and more salient classroom status hierarchies (Garandeau et al.,
2014) were found to increase bullying and/or victimisation.
However, it is very likely these data underestimate the role of the class-
room-level factors of bullying since some characteristics of classroom so-
cial dynamics are also characteristics traditionally viewed as being as stu-
dents’ individual characteristics (i.e. social acceptance, popularity), even
though they are determined by the classroom’s functioning. Thus, students’
individual characteristics that are related to their peer relations should be
regarded as characteristics that partly reflect the relationships and social
111
adolescents, Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2004; 2%–3% in a sample of Finnish
adolescents, Saarento et al., 2013). Among school-level characteristics, the
school climate with unclear disciplinary procedures and a higher propor-
tion of boys at school (Khoury-Kassabri, 2004; Ma, 2002) were found to in-
crease victimisation, whereas a positive school climate and a higher lev-
el of parental involvement (Ma, 2002) as well as students’ perceptions of
teachers’ disapproving attitudes toward bullying (Saarento et al. 2013) were
found to work as protective factors. The results of a study that investigated
the predictors of victimisation and bullying on a large sample of Slovenian
adolescents (Košir et al., 2020) revealed no significant differences between
schools in levels of victimisation or bullying behaviour. Similarly, second-
ary analyses of data obtained in the international studies TIMSS 2011 and
TIMSS 2015 indicated that only a small amount of variance in victimisa-
tion could be explained by the differences between schools (18%–4%); this
amount is smaller for older students (Košir & Japelj Pavešič, 2020). It was
also found that school size and the degree of problematic behaviour at
school as reported by school principals do not predict victimisation.
Investigating the classroom-level factors of victimisation and bully-
ing seems more promising. Previous studies (e.g. Garandeau et al., 2014;
Košir et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2020; Saarento et al., 2013) showed that class-
room-level factors (i.e. antibullying attitudes, teacher attitudes, outcome
expectations when defending victims, strong classroom hierarchies) most-
ly explain around 10% of the variance in performing and experiencing bul-
lying. These studies have identified certain classroom characteristics that
predict bullying and victimisation. Among protective factors, classroom
attitudes that do not approve of bullying and students’ perception of disap-
proving teachers’ attitudes toward bullying (Saarento et al., 3013) were re-
ported. The expectation of negative social consequences when defending
victims (Saarento et al., 2013), strong classroom pro-bully norms (Košir et
al., 2020) and more salient classroom status hierarchies (Garandeau et al.,
2014) were found to increase bullying and/or victimisation.
However, it is very likely these data underestimate the role of the class-
room-level factors of bullying since some characteristics of classroom so-
cial dynamics are also characteristics traditionally viewed as being as stu-
dents’ individual characteristics (i.e. social acceptance, popularity), even
though they are determined by the classroom’s functioning. Thus, students’
individual characteristics that are related to their peer relations should be
regarded as characteristics that partly reflect the relationships and social
111
