Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Social comparison, competition and teacherestudent


relationships in junior high school classrooms predicts
bullying and victimization*
Maria Rosaria Di Stasio a, *, Robert Savage a, Giovani Burgos b
a
McGill University, Department of Educational & Counselling Psychology, Rm 614, Education Building, 3700 McTavish Street, Montreal,
Quebec H3A 1Y2, Canada
b
Adelphi University, Department of Sociology, Blodgett Hall e Room 204B, P.O. Box 701, Garden City, NY, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This cross-sectional research examines how social comparison, competition and teacher
estudent relationships as classroom characteristics are associated with bullying and
victimization among junior high school students in grades 7 and 8 in Canada. The study
Keywords: tests a conceptual model of youth outcomes that highlights the importance of modeling
Bullying the effects of teaching practices as proximal structural conditions at the classroom level
Teacherestudent relationships
(N ¼ 38) that affect bullying outcomes at the individual level (N ¼ 687). Results of Hier-
Social comparison
archal linear modeling (HLM) revealed significant classroom-level effects in that increased
Competition
Classroom context
social comparison, competition and teacherestudent relationships were related to
bullying and victimization. An interaction for teacherestudent relationships and gender
also emerged. These findings may guide future intervention programs for junior high
schools that focus on enhancing cooperation and pro-social behavior in classrooms. The
findings could also inform programs that focus on building strong relationships between
students and teachers to help prevent bullying and victimization, particularly among boys.
© 2016 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Bullying is a problem that emerges in early childhood, persists into the adolescent years, and can have life-long
consequences (Hanish, Hill, Gosney, Fabes, & Martin, 2011; Totten & Quigley, 2003). Olweus (1993) defines bullying as
intentional negative actions (e.g. physical contact, verbal abuse, spreading rumors, and exclusion) repeated over time by
one or more person(s). This interpersonal relationship is characterized by an imbalance of power that often corresponds
with the victims not being able to defend themselves. Victimization occurs when an individual who is exposed repeatedly
over time to negative actions of another individual or a group of individuals. The middle school years (grades 6 to 8) are a
vulnerable time for young adolescents such that an increasing number of youth either become victims of bullying
behavior, or are the perpetrators of bullying themselves, (Nansel et al., 2001; National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2013).

*
Included in the Virtual Special Issue on Bullying in Adolescence
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: maria.distasio@mail.mcgill.ca (M.R. Di Stasio), Robert.savage@mcgill.ca (R. Savage), gburgos@adelphi.edu (G. Burgos).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.002
0140-1971/© 2016 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
208 M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216

Much empirical work on bullying has focused on individual or student-level characteristics such as gender, cognition,
aggressive dispositions, learning difficulties, and academic achievement as predictors of bullying (Atlas & Pepler, 1998;
Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Mishna, 2003). By contrast, a socio-ecological perspective suggests that bullying is
best understood as emerging from a complex set of relationships that exist within different contexts such as peer groups,
adultestudent interactions, classroom climate, and schools. From this standpoint, the classroom is a social unit that is
crucial for understanding bullying and victimization (Swearer & Espelage, 2001). Consistent with this view, Atria,
Strohmeier, and Spiel (2007) report that up to 54% of the variability in reported bullying occurs between classrooms.
The novel contribution of the present study is to undertake a theoretically driven exploration of the contributions of
distinct classroom-level and studentelevel features of bullying and victimization as well as their possible interactions in
describing these phenomena.

Teaching practices, classroom peer ecology, and youth outcomes

Rodkin and Gest (2011) have outlined an explicit conceptual framework of the putative processes within classroom
ecology that may influence youth outcomes for bullying. Using this framework, Gest and Rodkin (2011) report an association
between teaching practices, classroom peer ecologies and youth outcomes of aggression. General teacher-student interaction
patterns were studied by measuring broad dimensions of emotional and instructional support and classroom organization
that are presumed to have an impact on youth outcomes partly through peer ecology. ‘Network-related’ teaching practices
referred to specific features of teacher-student interactions that have relevance to the development of the peer ecology (p.
289). The authors found that seating arrangements and grouping strategies that promoted peer affiliations were associated
with higher ratios of liking to disliking, higher densities of friendships in classrooms and weaker status hierarchies.
Furthermore, teaching that demonstrated greater emotional support was associated with higher rates of student friendship
reciprocity. Roland and Galloway (2002) also found that classrooms that were cohesive, friendly and supportive were
associated with less bullying. These findings are consistent with other research that children's behavior is swayed by their
interpretations of the classroom atmosphere and the quality of their relationship with their teachers (Deault & Savage, 2013;
Woolfolk-Hoy & Weinstein, 2006). However, many of the studies that examined classroom effects did not take into account
the nested nature of the data. The present study will consider the hierarchical structure of the data to observe the influence
that classrooms have on bullying and victimization.

Teacherestudent relationships and bullying

Teachers serve as important role models for social behavior related to bullying. Students who perceive their teachers as
caring and feel respected are more likely to trust their teachers and seek help in times of need. Brendgen et al. (2011) sug-
gested that conflict between students and teachers resulted in the raised likelihood of students' display of disruptive and
maladaptive behavior. Students entering high school may have weaker relationships with teachers that can affect bullying
behavior (Wang, Swearer, Lembeck, Collins, & Berry, 2015). Crosnoe, Johnson, and Elder (2004) reported buffering effects of
intergenerational bonding (i.e. teacherestudent relationships) on academic achievement and disciplinary problem behavior
that seemed to be especially true for girls in grades 9e12.
Similarly, Konishi, Hymel, Zumbo, and Zhen (2010) examined whether student-teacher connectedness influenced the
relationship between bullying at the school level and academic achievement for 15-year old students in Canadian schools.
Student-teacher connectedness reflected student perceptions of teacher care for well-being, fairness, teacher attentiveness
and willingness to help. Konishi et al. found that positive student-teacher connectedness moderated the negative effects that
a school climate of bullying had on academic achievement but only for boys. This finding implies that there may be gender
differences in the quality of relationships that predict academic and social outcomes. Shin and Hye (2008) also reported that
children who rated high in peer victimization also rated high in child-teacher conflict and low on teacher closeness. This
suggests that children who have conflictual relationships with teachers may also be vulnerable to peer victimization. Un-
derlying mechanisms responsible for the association between teacher-student relations, victimization and gender differences
remain to be established.
More recently, Thornberg, Wӓnstrӧm, and Pozzoli (2016) investigated classroom-level data and reported that ‘class
relational climate’ uniquely contributed to classroom variations in victimization for elementary school children. The class
relational climate construct targeted both studentestudent and teacherestudent relationships and measured the amount of
caring, supportiveness and friendliness in school classes. Their findings suggest that relationship building may be vital to
children's social outcomes. We speculate that teacherestudent relationships by themselves may explain between-classroom
differences for victimization outcomes during adolescence.
There is still a relative dearth of multilevel research examining how teacher-student relations affect bullying and
victimization among students in junior high school contexts (grades 7 & 8) in Canada. The current study draws on a socio-
ecological model and investigates student perceptions of teacherestudent relationships (measured by teachers ‘care about
students, fair treatment and instructional practices) aggregated at the classroom level, and its effect on bullying and
victimization in junior high school. We are also interested in examining if there are any selective buffering effects for boys
versus girls.
M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216 209

Social comparison, competition and cooperation in the classroom

Theories of social comparison argue that students evaluate their opinions and abilities and seek accurate appraisals of
themselves among similar peers. Upward and downward comparisons among peers can result in students experiencing
positive or negative feelings (Festinger, 1954). Classrooms characterized by high levels of evaluation of performance and
with a focus on achievement may provide extensive opportunities for social comparisons (Dijkstra, Kuyper, van der Werf,
Bunk, & van der Zee, 2008).
Choi, Johnson, and Johnson (2011) report that the types of social interdependence (cooperative, competitive and indi-
vidualistic predispositions) and levels of cooperative learning in the classroom predicted social behavior of students' in
grades 3e5. Using path analysis, the authors found that cooperative predispositions defined as a preference for and liking of
engaging in cooperative behaviors to maximize both own and other's outcomes (p. 979) were associated with prosocial be-
haviors and negatively associated with harm-intended behavior. Meanwhile competitive dispositions defined as a prefer-
ence for and liking of engaging in competitive behaviors to maximize own outcomes, relative to others outcomes (p. 979) were
positively correlated with harm-intended behavior that was in turn related to victimization. Students with cooperative
dispositions tended to be in classrooms that used cooperative learning more frequently. The authors also found systematic
gender differences revealing that girls were more likely to be cooperative, displayed more prosocial behaviors while boys
were more competitive, and inclined to engage in more harm-intended behavior. These findings support social interde-
pendence theories claiming that negative interdependence results in oppositional interactions and children competing
against each other in order to attain goals.
As students move from elementary to junior high school, the structure and culture of classrooms change and there is more
emphasis on whole-class instruction, grades and competition (Orpinas & Horne, 2010). Feldlaufer, Midgley, and Eccles (1988)
investigated changes in classroom environments and revealed that students had less autonomy and fewer opportunities for
input as they move from elementary (Grade 6) to junior high school (Grade 7). There was also a decrease in cooperation and
interaction from pre-transition to post-transition and an increase in social comparison behavior among students in grade 7
classrooms.
Theoretical perspectives viewing bullying as a quest for social dominance have emphasized these variables (Pellegrini &
Long, 2002; Pellegrini, 2004). Theories related to social dominance argue that individuals will compete in order to achieve a
high position in dominance hierarchies and use strategies that may involve harm-intended behaviors. In fact, increasing
status through competition may lead to more pronounced classroom status hierarchies, which has been associated with
higher levels of bullying during adolescence (Garandeau, Lee, & Salmivalli, 2014).
Since research suggests that social comparison among peers is more prevalent in junior high schools relative to primary
schools (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Feldlaufer et al., 1988), it remains unclear how these characteristics relevant to
junior high school classroom environments can affect bullying interactions. There is a lack of research examining how
classroom practices that encourage social comparison and competition relate to individual levels of bullying and victimi-
zation. In addition, few, if any studies examine how these practices may interact with individual factors, such as gender.
To our knowledge, while there is research establishing a link between social interdependence types and social behavior,
there is no research that examines the effects of classroom-level competition, co-operation/interaction and social comparison
on bullying and victimization at a time when students are transitioning into high school and when bullying is most prevalent.
The present study explores this for the first time.

Individual characteristics associated with bullying

Gender differences

As noted above, patterns of bullying, dominance and peer affiliations in the new social context of junior high schools
are associated with increased bullying (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Consistent with some
social dominance models, boys report more bullying and victimization than girls do at this developmental phase
(Espelage & Holt, 2001; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Espelage and Holt (2001) found a stronger association between bullying
and popularity among males in grade 6 entering middle school compared to males in grade 8. Arguably, as boys enter a
new social environment they may use bullying to obtain popularity within a social group. Research highlights that boys
seeking to maintain social dominance are more likely to use coercive strategies than females (Nocentini, Menesini, &
Salmivalli, 2013; Olthof, Goosens, Vermande, Aleva, & van der Meulen, 2011). Since bullying may be a mean to main-
tain social dominance, especially for boys, teaching practices that can influence peer status need further attention.
General teacher-student interactions that do not actively encourage pro-social behaviors may implicitly provide
social models that suggest an acceptance of such conduct. This may ultimately be imitated outside the classroom.
If true, an interaction between teaching practice and gender may be observed. Interactions between gender
and classroom characteristics such as competition and social comparison predicted by social dominance, social
comparison and social interdependence theories have yet to be explored in the bullying literature, and therefore
investigated here.
210 M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216

The present study

The aim of the present study is to examine whether classroom characteristics (i.e. social comparison, competition,
cooperation/interaction and teacherestudent relationships) are associated with bullying and victimization among junior high
school students in grades 7 and 8 classes. We postulate that each of these variables will individually have an effect on the
outcome variables and make no assumptions about their combined effects. Additionally, this study investigates if there are
any interactions between classroom-level factors and gender. The following two sets of research hypotheses will be tested:
H1. Students in classrooms with a) higher levels of social comparison and b) higher competition/less cooperation and interaction,
and c) lower rated teacher-student relations are, in each case, more likely to be bullied and victimized than students in classrooms
with less social comparison, competition and higher rated teacher-student relations.
H2. Individual level factors interact with classroom level measures so that males in classrooms with a) high levels of social
comparison, and b) high competition/low cooperation and interaction, and c) low rated teacher-student relations are, in each case,
more likely to be bullied and victimized than similarly situated females.

Method

Participants

Sample characteristics
The present study implemented a non-probability technique using a convenience sample. Two out of the three largest
school boards in Quebec agreed to participate in the study. The total sample consisted of 678 student participants in grade 7
(n ¼ 355) and grade 8 (n ¼ 323) with 49% boys (n ¼ 332) and 51% girls (n ¼ 346) from 38 English Language Arts (ELA) classes in
six junior high schools across the two school boards in Quebec. Of the total number of classrooms approached to participate,
41% of eligible ELA classes and 68% of all students from classrooms that provided consent participated. This figure reflects all
teachers and students who agreed to participate with the sole caveat that only classes with ten or more students with consent
participated in the study. This additional requirement assured that the statistical technique (i.e. hierarchical linear modeling
[HLM]) had adequate power to detect level-1 and level-2 effects. In the Quebec education system, students are in elementary
school from Kindergarten to Grade 6 and then they transition to junior high school, which includes Grade 7 and 8. Partici-
pating students' ages ranged from 11 to 14 years (M ¼ 12.82, SD ¼ 0.72). Sixteen teachers (out of 28 ELA teachers approached)
participated in this study with a variety in years of teaching experience ranging from 4.5 to 41 years (M ¼ 12.19, SD ¼ 7.32).
Classrooms varied in size, ranging from 10 to 29 student participants (M ¼ 19.18, SD ¼ 6.54). Only classrooms for one
subject area (ELA) were included in the study to avoid having a crossover of the same sample of students. For methodological
reasons, ELA classes were chosen. Students in junior high school rotate from subject to subject, however the composition of
classrooms is that the majority of students (between 40% and 80%) will share the same classes for core subjects (i.e. Math,
French, and ELA). Furthermore, the schools participating in the present study work on nine-day cycles and students attend
ELA six days out of a nine-day cycle. Since students spend a considerable amount of time together, investigating the effects of
teaching practices on bullying and victimization at the classroom-level is warranted.

Procedure

Prior to any data collection, ethical approval from the McGill University Ethics Board was obtained. Principals, teachers and
parents provided consent for participation in the study. Data were collected during two academic years beginning in
November 2012 until December 2013. Information from the parent questionnaire revealed that 55.2% of students were of
European descendant, 4.4% South Asian, 1.4% Southeast Asian, 1.7% African American, 1% Aboriginal, 0.7% West Asian, 0.7%
Latin American, 23.3% of other descendent not mentioned while 11.7% did not provide a response. The ethnic origin of par-
ticipants was compared against Statistics Canada (2011) National Household Survey [NHS] norms to establish that the sample
was representative of Quebec's ethno-cultural diversity. A chi-square test was used to compare the sample to the population
census data and it revealed no statistically significant differences between the two populations c2 (6, 678) ¼ 11.94, p > .05.

Student surveys
All student measures were group administered by the principal investigator during class time according to strict verbal
protocol. Students were seated with enough space between each other to allow for privacy. To maintain confidentiality,
booklets with identification numbers replacing their names were administered. Verbal assent from students was obtained at
the outset of the study.

Student measures

Bullying survey
Bullying and victimization outcomes were assessed using the Illinois Bully Scale (IBS; Espelage & Holt, 2001). This is a 17-
item scale with three subscales assessing the frequency of bullying (nine items), victimization (four items) and fighting (four
M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216 211

items) behavior. Students read each statement and responded how many times they engaged in the activity or how many
times these things happened to them at school in the last 30 days. The response options are as follows: 0 ¼ Never, 1 ¼ 1 or 2
times, 2 ¼ 3 or 4 times, 3 ¼ 5 or 6 times, 4 ¼ 7 or more times. A total score for each subscale (i.e. bully, victimization, and fighting)
was calculated. The range of scores for bully was 0e36, victimization 0e16, and fighting 0e16. Based on the present sample of
678 participants the Cronbach's alpha level for each subscale was bullying ¼ 0.77; fighting ¼ 0.58; and victimization ¼ 0.79.
The internal reliability of the fight scale was low; however, this construct was not an outcome variable of interest in the
present study and therefore not considered.

Classroom measures

Student perceptions of classroom environment


The Students' Classroom Environment Measurement (SCEM; Midgley, Eccles, & Feldlaufer, 1991) was administered to gain
student perceptions of the classroom environment (reflecting teaching practices). This measure is one part of the Classroom
Environment Measure [CEM; Midgley et al., 1991] that was designed for the Transition at Early Adolescence project inves-
tigating the relationship between differences in classroom environment of primary and secondary mathematics classrooms
(Midgley et al., 1991). Classroom participants (i.e. students) are reliable sources for information, as they are sensitive to long-
standing attributes of the environment, which an outside observer may not detect. SCEM subscales used for this research
include Cooperation/Interaction, Competition, Social Comparison and Teacher/Student Relations (see Appendix for subscale
items). In the present sample (n ¼ 678) the reliability of internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha for subscales was
acceptable: Cooperation/Interaction (0.67), Competition (0.71), Social Comparison (0.74), and Teacher/Student Relations
(0.78). A composite score is calculated by summing all items for each subscale.

Data analysis

Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to examine the two sets of hypotheses posed by this research. HLM takes into
account the structural nature of the data with students nested within classrooms. As HLM partitions the variance and
covariance components with unbalanced nested data into within- and between-classroom components (Raudenbush & Bryk,
2002), the technique allowed us to model the effects of student-level variables and classroom-level variables independently,
and then their interactions to answer our research hypotheses.
Descriptive statistics were examined to ensure that variables met standard assumptions for multivariate analyses. For
large sample sizes, graphical methods are most appropriate for assessing normality of data (Field, 2009; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). Inspection of QeQ plots of bullying and victimization outcome variables showed evidence of heterogeneity of variance
for both outcomes. Consequently, these variables were transformed using square root transformations and the assumption of
homogeneity of variance was met. We conducted HLM analyses using transformed and untransformed data and findings for
all specified models were similar. Thus, to ease the interpretation and understanding of the findings, we decided to present
results using untransformed data. To check for collinearity, we examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) for classroom-level
variables. The VIF values for predictors were less than 2.5 indicating that the variance of an estimated regression coefficient
would not increase because of collinearity. Tables 1 and 2 present the descriptive statistics for student-level and classroom-
level variables.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for student-level variables.

Measure Min Max M S.D.


Bully 0 24.00 3.38 3.46
Victim 0 16.00 2.78 3.04
SCEM
Cooperation/Interaction 5.00 20.00 10.63 2.76
Competition 2.00 8.00 4.94 1.72
Social comparison 2.00 8.00 6.05 1.68
Teacher/Student relations 13.21 22.55 19.61 2.10

Note. N ¼ 678.
Key: SCEM ¼ Student Classroom Environment Measure.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for classroom-level variables.

Classroom indices Min Max M S.D


SCEM
Cooperation/Interaction 7.85 14.67 10.69 1.52
Competition 3.50 6.00 4.93 0.67
Social comparison 4.31 7.60 6.00 0.76
Teacher/Student relations 13.21 22.55 19.61 2.10

Note. N ¼ 38.
Key: SCEM ¼ Student Classroom Environment Measure.
212 M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216

Results

To test the research hypotheses of the present study, two-level models were used. A One-Way ANOVA with random effects
(unconditional model with no level-1 or level-2 predictors) was first run to assess the extent of between-class variance.
Model 1: One-Way ANOVA with random effects

Level-1 Model

Bully ¼ b0j þ rij

Level-2 Model

b0j ¼ g00 þ u0j

Table 3 presents results of the One-Way ANOVA with random effects models for bullying and victimization outcomes.
The unconditional model indicated that the intercepts were statistically significant for dependent variables with a sig-
nificant amount of variability between classrooms for bullying and victimization outcomes. The Intraclass Correlation
Coefficient (ICC) representing the proportion of variance between classrooms for bullying (6.9%) and victimization (4.3%)
suggested that there was enough between-class variability to warrant consideration of classroom-level effects. The
plausible value range for the mean outcomes were [1.57, 5.09] for bullying and [1.58, 4.04] for victimization. The final
estimation of variance components demonstrated statistically significant variation between classrooms in bullying and
victimization.
Table 4 presents results of the unconditional model (Model 1 with no covariates) and a regression with means-as-
outcomes model with level-2 predictors (Model 2 with classroom covariates). Results from Table 4 address the first set of
research hypotheses investigating the relationship between classroom environments and bullying and victimization out-
comes. In Model 2, predictors at level-2 (i.e. SCEM subscales) were introduced to determine their association with the
outcome variables (i.e. bullying and victimization). Predictors in the level-2 equation were centered around the grand mean.
For bullying, cooperation/interaction, competition, social comparison, and teacher/student relations were considered as
level-2 predictors. Social comparison was the only significant predictor that had a positive relationship with bullying
g03 ¼ 0.49 (t ¼ 2.07, p ¼ .046) indicating that classrooms with higher levels of social comparison were associated with
increased bullying outcomes. The residual variance between classrooms, t00 ¼ 0.77 was smaller than the original, t00 ¼ 0.81
estimated in the context of the unconditional model (see Table 3). An index of ‘proportion of variance explained’ at level-2 was
computed by comparing the t00 of the present model including level-2 predictors (i.e. cooperation/interaction, social com-
parison, competition, and teacher-student relations) to the base model (i.e. unconditional model) with no level-1 or level-2
predictors. It revealed that cooperation/interaction, social comparison, competition, and teacher-student relations accounted
for 4% of the true between-classroom variance in bullying. After removing the effect of these classroom-level predictors, the
conditional ICC was reduced to 6.5% from 6.9% in the unconditional model.
For victimization, cooperation/interaction, competition, social comparison, and teacher-student relations were entered
as level-2 predictors. The findings revealed competition and teacher-student relations as significant predictors. There was a
positive association between competition and victimization, g02 ¼ 0.71 (t ¼ 4.69, p < .001) demonstrating that classrooms
with higher levels of competition were related to increased victimization outcomes. A negative association between
teacher-student relations and victimization, g04 ¼ 0.16 (t ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .007) demonstrated that classrooms with higher-
rated teacher-student relations were associated with lower outcomes of victimization. The residual variance between
classrooms, t00 ¼ 0.17 was smaller than the original, t00 ¼ 0.40, as estimated in the context of the unconditional model. The
estimated proportion of variance between classrooms explained by the model with level-2 predictors was 57.5%. After
removing the effect of level-2 predictors in this model, the ICC was reduced to 1.7% from 4.2% in the unconditional model.
A One-Way ANCOVA model with random effects was used to determine whether gender was a significant student
characteristic associated with bullying and victimization. The results revealed that gender was significantly related to bullying
with an intercept of g00 ¼ 3.72, (t ¼ 14.58, p < .001). For bullying, the fixed effects for gender revealed girls engaged in less

Table 3
Results for the one-way ANOVA model with random effects for bullying perpetration and victimization.

Fixed effects B S.E. t-ratio d.f. p-value


Bullying 3.33 0.19 17.19 37 <0.001
Victimization 2.81 0.15 18.40 37 <0.001
Random effects S.D. Variance component d.f. c2 p-value
Bullying 0.90 0.81 37 88.54 <0.001
Victimization 0.63 0.40 37 65.80 0.003
M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216 213

Table 4
Comparing results for unconditional model and regression with means-as-outcomes model for bullying perpetration and victimization.

Predictor Bullying Victimization

Model 1: Unconditional Model 2: Model 1: Unconditional Model 2: Means-as-outcomes


model (no predictors) Means-as-outcomes model (no predictors) model (level-2 predictors)
model (level-2 predictors)
Fixed effects
Intercept g00 3.33*** (0.19) 3.32*** (0.18) 2.81***(0.15) 2.81*** (0.12)
Cooperation/Interaction g01 0.15 (0.12) 0.01 ns (0.08)
Competition g03 0.07ns (0.23) 0.71*** (0.15)
Social comparison g02 0.49* (0.24) 0.07 ns (0.19)
TeachereStudent rel. g04 0.02ns (0.07) 0.16** (0.06)
Random effects
Level-1 variance 11.06 (3.33) 11.07 (3.33) 8.85 (2.97) 8.85 (2.97)
Level-2 variance 0.81***(0.90) 0.78***(0.89) 0.40**(0.63) 0.17 (0.41)
Intraclass correlation 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.17
Goodness-of-fit (Deviance) 3580.01 3582.02 3419.96 3414.50

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

bullying than boys, g10 ¼ 0.75, (t ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .004). For victimization, the results revealed that gender was not statistically
significant yielding an intercept of g00 ¼ 2.98, (t ¼ 16.02, p ¼ .07).
Our second hypothesis tested cross-level interactions between individual and classroom characteristics, using an
Intercepts-and Slopes-as-Outcomes Model. For bullying, classroom variables were entered at level-2 for predicting within-
classroom slopes (i.e. gender). The results revealed no significant cross-level interactions between student-level and
classroom-level variables. However, for victimization, there was a significant cross-level interaction between gender and
teacher-student relations. For the gender slope, g10 ¼ 0.34, (t ¼ 1.95, p ¼ .05), teacher/student relations was a significant
predictor g12 ¼ 0.23, (t ¼ 2.63, p ¼ .009) indicating that males with lower-rated teacher/student relations was related to more
victimization than girls with lower scores for teacher/student relations (see Fig. 1).

Discussion

This research examined the association between student characteristics, classroom environment and outcomes of bullying
and victimization in grade 7 and 8 students. As anticipated, approximately 7% of the variance in bullying scores and 4% of the
variance in victimization scores consisted of differences between classrooms. These results are consistent with other esti-
mates in the literature (Barth, Dunlap, Dane, Lochman, & Wells, 2004; Scholte, Sentse, & Granic, 2010). More specifically, the
present research explored whether classroom characteristics namely social comparison, competition, cooperation/interaction
and teacherestudent relationships were contextual factors predicting bullying and victimization. In addition, this research
examined whether there were any interactional effects for girls and boys.
Using the lens of a socio-ecological model, this research explored the classroom as an important context that influences
peer ecologies, further supporting Rodkin and Gest's (2011) conceptual framework linking teaching practices to youth out-
comes in junior high school classes. These classroom characteristics (i.e. social comparison, competition, cooperation/
interaction and teacherestudent relationships) explored in this research are relevant to junior high school environments
where bullying is most prevalent. To our knowledge, it is the first time that these factors have been explored at a classroom-
level using a multilevel approach in junior high school contexts.
The present research tested our first set of hypotheses: Students in classrooms with a) higher levels of social comparison and
b) higher competition/less cooperation and interaction, and c) lower rated teacher-student relations are, in each case, more likely to
be bullied and/or victimized than students in classrooms with less social comparison, competition and higher rated teacher-student
relations. This set of hypotheses was confirmed and demonstrated that higher levels of social comparison and competition in
the classroom was related to higher levels of bullying and victimization outcomes, respectively. Lower rated teacher-student
relations were associated to increased victimization outcomes.
The finding for social comparison (which measured whether students compared their work and grades with peers in the
classroom) most broadly supports Festinger’s (1954) classical social comparison theory. This theory maintains that students
evaluate their abilities and seek accurate appraisals among their peers, which can lead to increased performance but can also
bring out negative affect in students. Feldlaufer et al. (1988) reported that there is more social comparison behavior when
transitioning to high school in grade 7, which provided a rationale for investigating social comparison as a relevant classroom
characteristic associated with bullying. Our findings suggest for the first time a direct link between social comparison and
rising bullying reported at this age. Junior high school classrooms include public evaluations, place greater emphasis on
grades, and provide less opportunity for cooperation and interactions than elementary classrooms (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler,
1984). Arguably, the structure and culture of junior high schools may be less supportive of new social groupings therefore
classroom features that accentuate evaluation and comparison may have further consequences for peer affiliations. High
levels of social comparisons in the classroom may promote competition for status, which in turn contributes to classroom
status hierarchies and bullying (Garandeau et al., 2014).
214 M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216

3.55
GENDER = Male
GENDER = Female

3.27
Victimization

2.98

2.70

2.42
-2.21 -1.14 -0.06 1.01 2.08

Teacher-Student Relations

Fig. 1. Teacherestudent relations and gender interaction effect for victimization outcomes.

The present research also showed that classroom environments rated high on competition were associated with increased
victimization. These findings support Choi et al.'s (2011) results on social interdependence revealing that competitive dis-
positions can increase the likelihood for harm-intended behavior. As suggested in our literature, teaching practices that
promote competitive classrooms may provide implicit social models that suggest an acceptance for failure and negative
conduct. Competitive environments promote patterns for negative interaction and behaviors that obstruct individual goal
attainment. This may lead to negative emotional energy and peer interactions that lend to increased feelings of rejections by
some.
In the present study, students' perception of better teacherestudent relationships was associated with reduced victimi-
zation. Teacher-student relations reflected the amount of care, fairness, respect and attention the teacher displayed toward
student. Consistent with Thornberg et al.'s (2016) study on class relational climate and peer victimization, classroom re-
lationships can contribute to between-class differences for peer victimization. Similarly, our results revealed that teacher-
student relations explained a significant amount of between-class variation in victimization outcomes. This substantiates
Doll, Song, Champion, and Jones (2011) claim that teacher support may be imperative, especially for students who are at risk
for victimization. They conclude that when students feel teachers are warm, caring, and engaging, they also feel classrooms
are safer places and are more likely to trust their teachers to protect them from any harm.
This research tested a second set of hypotheses: Individual level factors interact with classroom level measures so that males
in classrooms with a) high levels of social comparison, and b) high competition/ low cooperation and interaction, and c) low rated
teacher-student relations are, in each case, more likely to be bullied and victimized than similarly situated females.
Although we were not able to confirm a gender interaction with social comparison or competition, our research did
reveal an interaction between gender and teacherestudent relationships. Boys in classrooms with low rated teacher-
student relations were at increased risk for victimization compared to girls in classrooms with low rated teacher-student
relations. This gender difference was less evident as quality of teacherestudent relationship increased. Comparable to
Konishi et al.'s (2010) findings that teacherestudent relationship moderated the negative effects of bullying on academic
achievement for boys, we found that lower rated teacherestudent relationships were associated with more victimization
especially for boys. It is uncertain as to whether boys and girls relationship with teachers serves the same function.
However, these findings indicate that a positive teacherestudent relationship for boys also has a protective function. While
the precise nature of the relationship is unclear, it may be that boys seek help from teachers when dealing with victimi-
zation if they feel close to or are able to trust their teacher. Future studies need to investigate whether good relationships
reflect a third factor like better confidence, social or verbal skills that also protect against victimization. Clearly, more
research is needed to explore the source of these gender differences in teacherestudent relationships.

Limitations

Several limitations of this research need to be considered when interpreting the results. Beyond the broad and correla-
tional nature of the research already noted, junior high students rotate through classrooms and teachers, and do not remain in
the same classroom. Therefore, these findings regarding the impact of classrooms (and teaching practices) on overall bullying
and victimization rates must be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, communication with administrators of the
M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216 215

participating schools concluded that there is a large overlap of students in core subjects throughout the school day indicating
that peers do spend a sufficient amount of time together.
Furthermore, the reduction in ICC for bullying outcomes after removing the effects of cooperation/interaction, social
comparison, competition and teacher-student relations was quite modest. This suggests other classroom variables studied in
the literature (e.g. student attitudes about bullying and moral disengagement) that may explain additional variance at the
class-level should be considered. Additionally, social comparison and competition were each assessed with two items.
Although the internal consistency was acceptable for both, it may be that the two items did not entirely measure these
constructs.
A constraint of this multilevel research was that we did not control for variance at the school level. Research emphasizes
school climate and factors related to the school context as close correlates of bullying and victimization. In the present study,
classrooms were recruited from six schools, a sample size which is not sufficient to detect school effects. Further theorizing of
distinct classroom and school effects is arguably also needed before undertaking research with large data sets using 3-level
hierarchical models.
As is common in this literature, self-reports rather than direct observations were used to measure bullying and victimi-
zation. In addition to some of these overarching issues, the use of self-reports to assess variables may lead to problems with
shared method variance and inflated estimates. Furthermore, social desirability and self-presentation can be considered as
other possible limitations of this methodology. Nonetheless, the present study yielded 13.7% of students with bullying status
and 15.3% with victimization status which is comparable to prevalence rates found in the literature among young adolescents
using self-reported outcomes for bullying and victimization (Espelage & Holt, 2001; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003). One
should also be cautious with interpretation of what scales measure. The Illinois Bullying Scale (IBS) assesses behaviors in the
past thirty days and therefore may not provide insight into chronic behaviors. In addition, this study did not examine the
bully/victim role.

Implications

This research highlights features of the classroom that are related to bullying and victimization in grades 7 and 8 of junior
high school. It provides empirical support for putative processes within a classroom ecology that may influence youth
outcomes of bullying and victimization. Our findings highlight the potential importance of social comparison and compe-
tition as classroom characteristics that educators may need to scrutinize when reflecting on their teaching practice.
The correlational nature of this research does not allow us to make direct strong claims for the practical significance.
However, these findings provide new avenues for the development of effective research-led interventions targeting teachers
practice and at-risk students. Imperative to prevention and intervention programs for bullying, teachers can receive training
for classroom management and relationship building in order to create warm, positive and caring environments so students
can feel safe. To explore possible links to improved practice in advance of intervention data, practitioners may use findings
tentatively, judiciously and cautiously. More so, it can sensitize them to links between classroom contexts and particular at-
risk groups of boys in grade 7 and 8.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.002.

References

Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 86e99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00220679809597580.
Atria, M., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2007). The relevance of the school class as social unit for unit for the prevalence of bullying and victimization. European
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(4), 372e387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405620701554560.
Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S. T., Dane, H., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). Classroom environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus.
Journal of School Psychology, 42, 115e133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2003.11.004.
Brendgen, M., Girard, A., Vitaro, F., Dionne, G., Tremblay, R. E., Pe russe, D., et al. (2011). Gene-environment processes linking aggression, peer victimization
and teacher-child relationship. Child Development, 82(6), 2021e2036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2011.01644.x.
Choi, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (2011). Relationship among cooperative learning experiences, social interdependence, children aggression, victimi-
zation, and prosocial behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 976e1003.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, K. M., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher re-
lationships. Sociology of Education, 77, 60e81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700103.
Deault, L., & Savage, R. (2013). Effective grade 1 classroom contexts for reading and language growth: Evidence from typical children and children at risk of
attention difficulties. Journal of Psychological Abnormalities in Children, 2, 1e10.
Dijkstra, P., Kuyper, H., van der Werf, G., Bunk, A. P., & van der Zee, Y. G. (2008). Social comparison in the classroom, comparison in the classroom: A review.
Review of Educational Research, 78, 828e879. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321210.
Doll, B., Song, S., Champion, A., & Jones, K. (2011). Classroom ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying
in north American schools (2nd ed., pp. 147e158). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on academic achievement. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The
development of achievement motivation (pp. 283e331). Greenwich, Ct: JAI Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3), Social emotional and
personality development (pp. 1017e1096). New York: Wiley.
216 M.R. Di Stasio et al. / Journal of Adolescence 53 (2016) 207e216

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counselling and
Development, 78, 326e333.
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123e142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/
J135v02n02_08.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development,
74, 205e220.
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before, and after transition to
junior high school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133e156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431688082003.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 10, 117e140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and adolescents' bullying. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43,
1123e1133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0040-04.
Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 288e296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004.
Hanish, L. D., Hill, A., Gosney, S., Fabes, R. A., & Martin, C. L. (2011). Girls, boys, and bullying in preschool. The role of gender in the development of bullying.
In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in north American schools (2nd ed., pp. 132e146). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Konishi, C., Hymel, S., Zumbo, B. D., & Zhen, L. (2010). Do school bullying and student- teacher relationships matter for academic achievement? A multilevel
analysis. Canadian Journal School Psychology, 25, 19e39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0829573509357550.
Midgley, C., Eccles, J. S., & Feldlaufer, H. (1991). Classroom environment and the transition to junior high school. In B. J. Fraser, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),
Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Mishna, F. (2003). Learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 336e347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
00222194030360040501.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth. Journal of American Medical
Association, 285, 2094e2099.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2013 (NCES Publication No. 2014042). Washington, DC: US Department
of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid¼2014042.
Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Level and change of bullying behavior during high school: A multilevel growth curve analysis. Journal of
Adolescence, 36, 495e505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.004.
Olthof, T., Goosens, F. A., Vermande, M., Aleva, E. A., & van der Meulen, M. (2011). Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations with desired and acquired
dominance in the peer. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 339e359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.03.003.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2010). Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.),
Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 49e59). New York, NY: Routledge (New York, NY: Routledge).
Pellegrini, A. D. (2004). Bullying during the middle-school years. In C. E. Sanders, & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 177e202).
San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2001). Dominance in early adolescent boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 47, 142e163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2001.0004.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through
secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259e280. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/
026151002166442/pdf.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rodkin, P. C., & Gest, S. D. (2011). Teaching practices, classroom peer ecologies, and bullying behaviors among schoolchildren. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M.
Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in north American schools (2nd ed., pp. 75e90). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2002). Classroom influences on bullying. Educational Research, 44, 299e312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188022000031597.
Scholte, R., Sentse, M., & Granic, I. (2010). Do actions speak louder than words? Classroom attitudes and behavior in relation to bullying in early adolescence.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, 789e799.
Shin, Y., & Hye, Y. K. (2008). Peer victimization in Korean preschool children: The effects of child characteristics, parenting behaviors, and teacher-child
relationships. School Psychology International, 29, 590e605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143034308099203.
Statistics Canada. (2011). National household survey. Retrieved on February 5, 2014 from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/index-eng.cfm.
Swearer, S., & Espelage, D. (2001). Expanding the social-ecological framework of bullying among youth: Lessons learned from the past and directions for the
future. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in north American schools (2nd ed., pp. 3e12). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allan & Bacon.
Thornberg, R., Wӓnstrӧm, L., & Pozzoli, T. (2016). Peer victimization and its relation to class relational climate and class moral disengagement among school
children. Educational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1150423.
Totten, M., & Quigley, P. (2003). Bullying, school exclusion and literacy. Canadian Public Health Association.
Wang, C., Swearer, S. M., Lembeck, P., Collins, A., & Berry, B. (2015). Teachers matter: An examination of student-teacher relationships, attitudes toward
bullying, and bullying behavior. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31, 219e238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2015.1056923.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Weinstein, C. (2006). Student and teacher perspectives on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook
of classroom management, research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 181e219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

S-ar putea să vă placă și