The effects of individual characteristics, teacher practice, and school organizational factors on students' bullying: A multilevel analysis of public middle schools in Taiwan

Wei, Hsi Sheng; Williams, James H.; Chen, Ji‐Kang; Chang, Hsiu Yu

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.004

Cited by 94 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Perhaps these findings can be explained by the fact that increasing school size was related to decreasing student attachment to school, teachers, and extracurricular activities [53]. In line with the above research, researchers have also found that larger schools have higher rates of bullying [54]; however, other studies have suggested no significant relationship between school size and the prevalence of bullying [55,56].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Demographic, Psychological, and School Environment Correlates of Bullying Victimization and School Hassles in Rural Youth

Smokowski

Cotter

Robertson

et al. 2013

Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about bullying in rural areas. The participants in this study included 3,610 racially diverse youth (average age = 12.8) from 28 rural schools who completed the School Success Profile-Plus. Binary logistic regression models were created to predict bullying victimization in the past 12 months, and ordered logistic regression was used to predict school hassles in the past 12 months. Overall, 22.71% of the sample experienced bullying victimization and school victimization rates ranged from 11% to 38%. Risk factors for bullying victimization included younger students and students experiencing depression and anxiety. Being female, Hispanic/Latino or African American, was associated with lower bullying victimization. Thirty-nine percent of the sample reported a high level of school hassles. Younger students and students with higher levels of anxiety and depression were at increased risk for school hassles. Students from larger schools reported high levels of school hassles, while students from schools with more teachers with advanced degrees reported fewer school hassles.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 47%

Demographic, Psychological, and School Environment Correlates of Bullying Victimization and School Hassles in Rural Youth

Smokowski

Cotter

Robertson

et al. 2013

Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of permissive practices in the face of bullying causes a lower perception of the students' support to face these problems on the part of the school (Hyman et al, 2004;Wei, Williams, Chen, & Chang, 2010). There is evidence that lack of school support increases students' vulnerability, empowers perpetrators, and promotes non-committal behavior of viewers with victim advocacy (Choy & Cho, 2001) 2012De Wet, 2007;Hong & Espelage, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Practices, School Support and Bullying

Rodríguez¹,

Noriega

Cuervo

2017

WJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in recent years indicates that schools, and in particular teaching practices, play an essential role in preventing bullying. This study's aim is to investigate the direct and indirect relationships between permissive and direct intervention teacher practices, school support and bullying. In a non-probabilistic way, 386 (58.1%) boys and 278 (41.9%) girls from 30 primary schools were selected in a city in the northwest of Mexico. The average age of students was 10.4 years (SD = 1.3 years). From the results of the calculation of a model of structural equations, it is inferred that permissive teaching practices are directly related positively to bullying, whereas direct intervention does it in a negatively. It is seen that both types of practices are indirectly related to bullying through its effects on school support. These findings confirm the role of the teacher in the prevention of bullying.

show abstract

“…gender, age, ethnicity/race) (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007), locus of control (Andreou, 2000), problem-solving skills (Cassidy, 2009), self-efficacy (Andreou, Vlachou, & Didaskalou, 2005), self-esteem (O'Moore & Kirkham, 2001), and loneliness (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). Familial factors include family environment (Stevens, Bourdeaudhuij, & Oost, 2002), parenting style (Georgiou, 2008), and parental involvement (Flouri & Buchanan, 2003),whereas school-related factors include school/class size, school climate, and school-connectedness (Wilson, 2004), teacher practices (Wei, Williams, Chen, & Chang, 2010), school-related stress experience (Natvig, Albrektsen, & Qvarnstrøm, 2001), academic adjustment (Schwartz, Farver, Chang, & Lee-Shin, 2002), and academic achievement (Beran, Hughes, & Lupart, 2008). The increased interest in research into bullying has disclosed a variety of adverse effects of bullying and victimization, including depression (Hawker & Boulton, 2000); psychosomatic health problems (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009); psychological disturbance, hyperactivity, and internalizing/externalizing problems (Kumpulainen et al, 1998); posttraumatic stress (Mynard, Joseph, & Alexandera, 2000); suicidal ideation and/or behaviour (Kim, Leventhal, Koh, & Boyce, 2009); and substance abuse (abuse of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and inhalants) (Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, & D'Amico, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bullying and victimization: Predictive role of individual, parental, and academic factors

Atik

Güneri

2013

School Psychology International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the roles of individual factors (age, gender, locus of control, selfesteem, and loneliness), parenting style, and academic achievement in discriminating students involved in bullying (as bullies, victims, and bully/victims) from those not involved. Participants comprised 742 middle school students (393 females, 349 males). The results of multinomial logistic regression analysis indicated that a higher locus of control, lower strictness/supervision scores, increased age, and being male increased the likelihood of being a bully; a higher locus of control, higher loneliness score, and a lower acceptance/involvement score increased the likelihood of being a victim; and higher loneliness and psychological autonomy scores and lower acceptance/ involvement, strictness/supervision, and academic achievement scores increased the likelihood of being a bully/victim. Although parental style variables play an important role in involvement in bullying, the individual factor loneliness is a more powerful predictor than other predictors in discriminating victims and bully/victims from uninvolved students. Age and gender are stronger predictors than other predictors in discriminating bullies from uninvolved students.

show abstract

The effects of individual characteristics, teacher practice, and school organizational factors on students' bullying: A multilevel analysis of public middle schools in Taiwan

Cited by 94 publications

References 57 publications

Demographic, Psychological, and School Environment Correlates of Bullying Victimization and School Hassles in Rural Youth

Demographic, Psychological, and School Environment Correlates of Bullying Victimization and School Hassles in Rural Youth

Teaching Practices, School Support and Bullying

Bullying and victimization: Predictive role of individual, parental, and academic factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About