Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato]On: 13 July 2014, At: 00:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20
Associations between being bullied,perceptions of safety in classroomand playground, and relationship withteacher among primary school pupilsMichael J. Boulton a , Elizabeth Duke a , Gemma Holman a ,Eleanor Laxton a , Beth Nicholas a , Ruth Spells a , Emma Williamsa & Helen Woodmansey aa Department of Psychology , University of Chester , Chester, UKPublished online: 12 Jun 2009.
To cite this article: Michael J. Boulton , Elizabeth Duke , Gemma Holman , Eleanor Laxton , BethNicholas , Ruth Spells , Emma Williams & Helen Woodmansey (2009) Associations between beingbullied, perceptions of safety in classroom and playground, and relationship with teacher amongprimary school pupils, Educational Studies, 35:3, 255-267, DOI: 10.1080/03055690802648580
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03055690802648580
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational StudiesVol. 35, No. 3, July 2009, 255–267
ISSN 0305-5698 print/ISSN 1465-3400 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03055690802648580http://www.informaworld.com
Associations between being bullied, perceptions of safety in classroom and playground, and relationship with teacher among primary school pupils
Michael J. Boulton*, Elizabeth Duke, Gemma Holman, Eleanor Laxton, Beth Nicholas, Ruth Spells, Emma Williams and Helen Woodmansey
Department of Psychology, University of Chester, Chester, UKTaylor and FrancisCEDS_A_365028.sgm10.1080/03055690802648580Educational Studies0305-5698 (print)/1465-4300 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis0000000002009Dr [email protected]
This study examined three main issues among 364 primary school children: (1)self-reported levels of perceived safety in classroom and playground, andrelationship with teacher, (2) associations between perceived safety in the twocontexts and peer reported levels of being bullied, and (3) if relationship withteacher moderated the associations between peer reported levels of being bulliedand perceived safety in classroom and playground. Data were collected inindividual and small group interviews. Overall, while most participants reportedpositive relationships with their class teacher, and felt safe in their classroom andin the playground, a substantial minority did not. The correlations between levelof being bullied and perceived safety in classroom and playground weresignificant but of modest size. Relationship with teacher did moderate thecorrelation for perceived safety in the classroom, but did not do so for perceivedsafety in the playground. No significant age or sex differences were obtained. Thetheoretical and practical implications of these findings were discussed.
Keywords: bullying; safety; classroom; playground; teacher–pupil relationship
Introduction
There is now overwhelming evidence that many children across the world aresubjected to persistent aggression (called “bullying” henceforward) by some of theirpeers in school and are unable to defend themselves adequately (Boulton andUnderwood 1992; Crick and Bigbee 1998; Eslea et al. 2004; Olweus 1993; Pepler et al.2006; Salmivalli 1999). Research has made it equally clear that these experiences arecorrelated with, and contribute to, maladjustment in various domains (Boulton, Smith,and Cowie, submitted; Hawker and Boulton 2000; Kochenderfer and Ladd 1996;Schwartz et al. 2005). The outcome of bullying of most relevance to the present studyis a feeling of being unsafe at school. Available evidence, although limited, indicatesthat bullying is inversely associated with perceptions of personal safety within school(Beran and Tutty 2002; Noaks and Noaks 2000; Rigby 1996; Sharp 1995; Slee 1993;Slee and Rigby 1993). In a recent study, Cowie and Oztug (2008) found that bullyingwas the single most common reason why pupils felt unsafe in school. The authorsof these studies are to be congratulated for drawing attention to this important facet ofpsycho-social adjustment in school, which has tended to be overlooked in studies ofthe correlates/outcomes of bullying relative to more “traditional” measures such as
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
256 M.J. Boulton et al.
self-esteem, depression, anxiety and loneliness (see Hawker and Boulton 2000).Nevertheless, important questions, and methodological shortcomings, remain to beaddressed. No study that we could identify has used dedicated scales to measureperceptions of safety in some specific contexts within school that can be tested forreliability and construct validity, prior to being examined in relation to being bullied.
The first aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate associationsbetween level of being bullied and perceptions of safety using original scales tomeasure the latter. Two contexts were examined, the classroom and the playground,for various reasons. Perceptions of safety in both, but especially the former, have obvi-ous intuitive relevance to children’s academic success, and this is endorsed by somelimited research findings. Boulton, Spells, et al. (submitted) found that children’sperceptions of safety in the classroom and, separately, the playground were negativelycorrelated with classroom concentration, and the effect size was greater in relation toperceptions of safety in the classroom.
Nevertheless, perceptions of safety in the playground are also important since thisis where much, if not most, bullying and other forms of peer victimisation/aggressiontake place (Boulton 1993a, 1993b; Craig and Pepler 1997; Slee 1995; Tapper andBoulton 2004). Cowie and Oztug (2008) reported that the most unsafe place in schoolwas deemed to be play areas (playground and field), and, as noted above, this wasattributed more to bullying than to any other reason. Moreover, Boulton, Chau, et al.(submitted) found that levels of being bullied predicted falls in liking of recess/playtime, and they suggested that pupils’ negative perceptions of this aspect of theschool day could contribute to a general disliking of school and hence academic fail-ure. Despite findings such as these, and other arguments for its important role in socialand educational development, research on children’s experiences and views of recess/playtime is far less extensive relative to the classroom context (Blatchford 1998;Boulton 1999, 2005a; Pellegrini et al. 2002). To the best of our knowledge, no extantstudy has examined associations between being bullied and perceptions of safety inthe playground specifically. Based on the above, Hypothesis 1 of the present studypredicted that levels of being bullied would be negatively correlated with perceptionsof safety in (1) the classroom, and (2) the playground.
The second aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that the teacher–pupil relationship would moderate any associations between level of being bullied andperceptions of safety in the classroom, and separately, the playground. Studies haveshown that the pupil–teacher relationship can impact in several important respects onacademic adjustment (Hamre and Pianta 2001; Pianta and Stuhlman 2004). Manyresearchers have recognised the important role that teachers can play in helping toprevent bullying (Boulton 1997; Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier 2007; Yoon 2004;Yoon and Kerber 2003). Taken together, these studies indicate that teachers’ views andbeliefs about bullying impact upon their anti-bullying action or inaction. For instance,based on work by Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier (2007) and Yoon and Kerber (2003)it seems that teachers are less likely to intervene in bullying if they are unsympatheticto victims or believe that getting involved is unnecessary. However, far less attentionhas been paid to teachers’ role in helping pupils cope with the stress of being bullied.As far as we can tell, no study has tested the possibility that the teacher–pupil relationshipmay moderate between children’s levels of being bullied and their perceptions of safetywithin school. Reasons for why this seems a viable proposal will now be examined.
For rather obvious reasons, acts of bullying are more numerous away from adultattention and supervision (e.g. in the playground, see above), but the affective
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational Studies 257
consequences, including fear of it happening again in the future, have been found toextend into the classroom well after the actual bullying episodes took place (Boulton,Trueman, and Murray 2008). Moreover, Boulton, Trueman and Murray (2008) alsofound that associations between levels of being bullied and fear of it happening againwere only of modest size. Other research has shown that positive/supportive relation-ships with people other than teachers, including peer counsellors (Boulton, Trueman,and Rotenberg 2007) and friends (Boulton et al. 1999; Hodges, Malone, and Perry1997), can protect pupils from the risk of being bullied and its negative effects. Basedon the above, it seems reasonable to suggest that the association between levels ofbeing bullied and perceptions of safety among pupils would vary depending on therelationship they had with their class teacher such that the association between levelsof being bullied and perceptions of feeling unsafe in (1) the classroom, and (2) theplayground would be stronger among pupils who do not have a good relationship withtheir teacher relative to that association among those pupils who do have a goodrelationship with their teacher. This constituted Hypothesis 2 of the present study.This has parallels with what researchers (Boulton et al. 1999; Hodges et al. 1999) callthe “friendship protection hypothesis”; here, Hypothesis 2 can be regarded as the“teacher protection hypothesis” since it reflects the notion that children who enjoy agood relationship with their teacher are less at risk of feeling unsafe within schooldespite the presence of bullying, relative to other children who do not have such agood relationship.
Bullying is now known to take many different forms, and some of the mostcommon manifestations are physical (hitting and kicking), verbal (nasty names),social exclusion (leaving targets out of games and other activities) and relational(deliberately damaging targets’ relationships) (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen1992; Crick and Bigbee 1998; Fox and Boulton 2006; Olweus 1993). Hence, thepresent study measured all of these sub-types in order to get a comprehensive indexof being bullied.
In addition to the main hypotheses described above, the present study also set outto provide descriptive data on levels of pupils’ perceived relationship with teacher,safety in classroom and safety in playground since such data on all of these constructsare scarce. Additionally, recent studies (Boulton 2008; Boulton, Trueman, and Murray2008) have shown that average levels of child school adjustment scores derived fromrelatively large samples can mask a noteworthy minority of children whose responsesindicate rather extreme levels of maladjustment. It is these children who need ourfocused support. Hence, we will report how many of our participants meet rather strictcriteria for maladjustment on each of these three constructs.
Research on bullying and its relationship with adjustment variables, coping andsocial support seeking has indicated the existence of age and sex differences (Eslea etal. 2004; Frisen, Holmqvist, and Oscarsson 2008; Hunter, Boyle, and Warden 2004;Kochenderfer-Ladd and Pelletier 2007; Owens, Daly, and Slee 2005; Pepler et al.2006; Scheithauer et al. 2006). Hence, for all of the research questions presentedabove, we tested for age and sex differences.
Finally, it is worth noting that the research questions presented above are impor-tant both theoretically and practically. They are relevant to emerging theories ofhow different types and sources of social support enable children to cope with thepotentially negative effects of being bullied (Boulton submitted; Hunter and Borg2006). Data obtained here can also provide guidance for interventions designed tosupport victims of bullying. For instance, if it did emerge that relationship with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
258 M.J. Boulton et al.
teacher moderated between levels of being bullied and feelings of being unsafe, thenclearly this moderator would need to be added to theoretical models of social support/coping, and it would also suggest that more be done to help all children, but especiallythose who experience high levels of being bullied, form good relationships with theirteachers.
Method
Participants
Participants (n = 364) were drawn from seven primary schools in the UK, selected ona convenience basis. There were 190 Year 4 pupils (80 girls and 110 boys, mean age =9.5 years), 44 Year 5 pupils (20 girls and 24 boys, mean age = 10.5 years) and 130Year 6 pupils (70 girls and 60 boys, mean age = 11.5 years). Consent was obtainedfrom all participants, and from parents or head teachers acting in loco parentis.
Procedure
Prior to data collection, participants were asked again if they were happy to partici-pate. It was explained that they were not being tested, that there were no right orwrong answers, and that they were free to give their own opinions and to withdraw atany time. They were invited to ask for help or clarification whenever it was needed.They were informed that the researcher would not disclose their personal responses toanyone else from the school, with the exception that if the researcher felt they had saidsomething to indicate that their wellbeing was being threatened then that informationwould have to be brought to the attention of a member of the school staff. The latterwas not required during the study.
Due to their especially sensitive nature, peer nominations of bullying were gener-ated in individual meetings with a research. A class list was provided and theresearcher went through each class member in turn and asked the participant to statewho met the criteria for each of the four sub-types of being bullied items (see below).They were informed that they could give as many or as few nominations as theywanted.
Data for the other three measures were collected in small groups with at least oneresearcher present at all times to ensure all participants could read all of the items,were taking the task seriously (rather than responding randomly), and to answer anyquestions or provide any help that might be needed. Each participant was providedwith a small booklet containing the items of the study, and invited to circle the appro-priate response for each item. To help facilitate accurate and honest responding, theresearcher took each small group through two practice items to familiarise them withthe scoring system, read through each of the items in turn asking respondents to followthis pace unless they felt able to go at a faster pace, and seated participants so that theycould not see how their peers were responding.
Measures and data reduction
Peer nominations of being bullied
Four items, drawn from prior studies (Boulton, Trueman, and Murray 2008; Fox andBoulton 2006) were used to measure peer nominations of bullying: gets hit, kicked
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational Studies 259
and/or pushed for no reason; gets called nasty names for no reason; gets left out onpurpose for no reason; and has their friendships spoilt by other kids for no reason.However, several of the head teachers of participating schools insisted that our proce-dure deviated from prior uses of these items. Specifically, the head teachers wanted usto ask participants to identify who was NOT a victim of each sub-type of bullyingrather than who WAS nominated. Hence, in the interviews pupils were asked: “Pleasecan you say who does NOT get (insert sub-type of being bullied)?” Once all of thedata were collected, we then were able to calculate how many times each participantwas effectively identified as a victim of each sub-type of being bullied by countinghow many times they were not mentioned in the peer nomination interviews. Theseraw scores for each sub-type of being bullied were standardised into percentage scoresto control from variations in class size. To illustrate, a child who was never identifiedas being bullied for a particular sub-type would receive a percentage score of zero forthat sub-type of being bullied, whereas a child who was identified by all of her/hisclassmates as being bullied for a particular sub-type would receive a percentage scoreof 100 for that sub-type. Zero-order correlation coefficients were calculated betweenthe four sub-types of being bullied. These were all significant at p < .01, and rangedfrom .60 to .74. Hence, an overall level of being bullied score was calculated as theaverage of these for separate sub-type scores. High scores indicate a high level ofbeing bullied.
Perceived relationship with teacher
Our original intention was to use a published scale to measure the teacher–pupil rela-tionship. However, some head teachers would not allow us to use any negativelyworded items since they felt this would be detrimental to good relationships in theschool by drawing attention to negative thoughts about teachers. Hence, we devised anovel 10 item scale that met this criterion for use in the present study. In developingthis we were guided by studies which attest to the value of using child self-reportmeasures of the teacher–pupil relationship, particularly of emotional and supportiveaspects of the relationship (Harrison, Clarke, and Ungerer 2007). The items were: “Ilike my teacher”, “My teacher helps me a lot”, “I can talk to my teacher aboutanything”, “I can tell my teacher if I am unhappy”, “My teacher makes sure I am OK”,“I get on well with my teacher”, “My teacher is like a friend to me”, “My teacherreally listens to me”, “I can tell my teacher if I have any problems”, and “I trust myteacher”. Response options were “Agree a lot”, “Agree a bit”, “Disagree a bit” and“Disagree a lot”, scored from 4 to 1, respectively. These items had good internal reli-ability (α = .90) and a principal components analysis extracted one factor with aneigen value above 1 (5.42) that accounted for 54.2% of the variance, and factor load-ings ranging from .55 to .84. This is good evidence for a uni-dimensional scale.Hence, an overall perceived relationship with teacher score was computed as theaverage of the 10 items. A high score indicates a better perceived relationship.
Perceived safety in classroom and playground
We could not locate dedicated published scales to measure perceived safety in theclassroom and, separately, in the playground. Hence, two scales were created forthe present study. For similar reasons to those described in the preceding paragraph,we were constrained by head teachers to use only positively worded items. The items
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
260 M.J. Boulton et al.
for the two locations of interest (classroom and playground) were identical except thatone set referred to “my classroom” and the other set to “the playground”. The itemswere: “I don’t feel in danger in (insert location)”, “I like it in (insert location)”, “Idon’t feel scared (insert location)”, “Nothing bad can happen to me in (insert loca-tion)”, “I look forward to being in (insert location)”, “I can relax in (insert location)”,“I feel safe in (insert location)”, “(Insert location) is a happy place for me”. Responseoptions were “Agree a lot”, “Agree a bit”, “Disagree a bit” and “Disagree a lot”,scored from 4 to 1, respectively.
The classroom items had good internal reliability (α = .84) and a principal compo-nents analysis extracted one factor with an eigen value above 1 (3.81) that accountedfor 47.6% of the variance, and factor loadings ranging from .55 to .78. This is goodevidence for a uni-dimensional scale. Hence, an overall perceived safety in theclassroom score was computed as the average of the eight classroom items. A highscore indicates higher perceptions of safety.
The playground items had good internal reliability (α = .87) and a principalcomponents analysis extracted one factor with an eigen value above 1 (4.25) thataccounted for 53.1% of the variance, and factor loadings ranging from .52 to .82. Thisis good evidence for a uni-dimensional scale. Hence, an overall perceived safety in theplayground score was computed as the average of the eight classroom items. A highscore indicates higher perceptions of safety.
Results
The descriptive data are shown in Table 1. The mean level of being bullied scoreindicates that a noteworthy proportion of our sample was identified by many of theirpeers as victims of bullying. The mean scores for the three perception variables indi-cate that as a whole, our participants reported positive relationships with their classteacher, and felt safe in their classroom and in the playground – average responsesacross the uniformly positively worded items on all of these constructs were betweenthe “Agree a lot” and the “Agree a bit” options. In order to determine if any childrencould be identified that deviated substantially from such positive perceptions wecounted how many of them had an average score on each of these measures thatcorresponded to between the “Disagree a bit” and the “Disagree a lot” range, i.e. inthe range 1 to 2. This was lowest for perceived relationship with teacher (4.8%),intermediate for perceived safety in the classroom (5.3%) and highest for perceived
Table 1. Zero-order correlations between level of being bullied, perceived relationship withteacher, perceived safety in the classroom and perceived safety in the playground, anddescriptive statistics.
1 2 3 4 Mean SD
1. Being bullieda — −.15** −.26** −.16** 14.6 13.82. Perceived relationship with teacherb — .78** .49** 3.35 .66b
3. Perceived safety in classroomb — .62** 3.28 .644. Perceived safety in playgroundb — 3.24 .71aScores were percentages, higher scores indicated greater levels of being bullied.bScores could range from 1 (low) to 4 (high).**p < .01
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational Studies 261
safety in the playground (9.0%). A series of χ2 tests did not reveal any age or sexdifferences.
The zero-order correlations among the study variables are also shown in Table 1.Level of being bullied was significantly negatively correlated with perceived safety inthe classroom (−.26), and perceived safety in the playground (−.16). This supportsHypothesis 1, but the strength of the relationship in both cases was low. Substantiallyhigher correlations were evident among perceived relationship with teacher, perceivedsafety in the classroom and perceived safety in the playground. This pattern of corre-lations means it is appropriate to examine the hypothesis that perceived relationshipwith teacher moderates the association between level of being bullied and (1) perceivedsafety in the classroom, and (2) perceived safety in the playground. To do this, tworegression models were tested, one in which perceived safety in the classroom servedas the dependent variable and the other in which perceived safety in the playgrounddid so. In both models, level of being bullied and perceived relationship with teacherwere entered on Step 1, and, following Baron and Kenny (1986), the product of thesepredictors was entered on Step 2 in order to test for moderation. Finally, the productterms involving age, level of being bullied and perceived relationship with teacher andalso sex, level of being bullied and perceived relationship with teacher were enteredon Step 3 in order to determine if the moderation effect tested on Step 2 differed as afunction of age and sex. All non-categorical predictors were centred.
The results of the two regression models are summarised in Table 2 (Step 3 resultsare not presented because they are all non-significant). There was no evidence formoderation when predicting perceived safety in the playground. However, a modera-tion effect was found when predicting perceived safety in the classroom. To determinethe nature of this effect, separate correlations between level of being bullied andperceived safety in the classroom were computed for those with the highest perceived
Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting safety inclassroom and safety in playground.
Variable B SE B β
Safety in classroomStep 1
Bullying −.006 .004 −.16*Relationship with teacher .57 .05 .59***
Step 2Bullying × Relationship with teacher .008 .002 .39***
*p < .05, ***p < .001Note: r2 = .63, p < .001, for overall model; ∆r2 = .02 for Step 2 (p < .001).
Safety in playgroundStep 1
Bullying < .001 .006 .01Relationship with teacher .45 .09 .42***
Step 2Bullying × Relationship with teacher .003 .003 .12
***p < 0.001Note: r2 =.25, p < .001, for overall model; ∆r2 < .01 for Step 2, n.s.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
262 M.J. Boulton et al.
relationship with teacher scores and then for those with the lowest perceived relation-ship with teacher scores. The groups were formed so that they contained roughly equalnumbers of participants (n = 180 and 166, respectively). Consistent with the modera-tion hypothesis, the correlation was significant among those with the lowest perceivedrelationship with teacher scores (r = .25, p < .01) but not among those with the highestperceived relationship with teacher scores (r = .07).
Discussion
The present study adds to the literature in several key ways: first in providing descrip-tive data concerning children’s perceived relationship with their class teacher, andtheir perceived safety in two school contexts (classroom and playground); second inexamining the associations between level of being bullied and perceptions of safety inthose two school contexts and third in testing if perceived relationship with teachermoderates the association between level of being bullied and perceptions of safety inthose two school contexts. As noted in the Introduction, data on many of these issuesare either scarce or non-existent in the extant literature. They will be discussed in turn,prior to a consideration of their combined theoretical and practical implications.
The descriptive data indicate that, taken as a whole, the sample reported ratherpositive perceptions of their relationship with their class teacher, and felt safe in bothclassroom and playground. Indeed, average responses on all of these constructs werebetween the “Agree a lot” and the “Agree a bit” options which is encouraging consid-ering that all of the items were worded positively. Nevertheless, we were also able toidentify a small proportion of participants that had an average score that correspondedwith the “Disagree a bit” to the “Disagree a lot” range, indicative of rather negativeperceptions. This was lowest for perceived relationship with teacher (4.8%), interme-diate for perceived safety in the classroom (5.3%) and highest for perceived safety inthe playground (9.0%). Scholars (Beran and Tutty 2002; Boulton, Trueman, andMurray 2008; Noaks and Noaks 2000; Slee 1993; Slee and Rigby 1993) have notedthat children who exhibit such negative feelings about school-related issues at thiskind of level deserve our attention and support. Moreover, these findings add to stud-ies which indicate that a noteworthy minority of pupils report negative affect withinschools; for instance Boulton, Trueman, and Murray (2008) found that 7.6% and 6.8%of their sample reported very high levels of fear of being verbally and physicallybullied, respectively, even though this was not the case for the majority of participants.The other two issues addressed in the present study give insights into what couldcontribute to these fears and into how they might be tackled.
The present study has also found evidence for a significant association betweenlevel of being bullied and perceived safety in school, and in this regard it is consistentwith extant studies (Beran and Tutty 2002; Noaks and Noaks 2000; Rigby 1996; Sharp1995; Slee 1993; Slee and Rigby 1993). A novel contribution of our study is its use ofdedicated scales with demonstrably good psychometric properties to measure percep-tions of safety in two different contexts – classroom and playground – and both werefound to be associated, albeit at moderate levels, with our index of being bullied. Thisis a cause for concern since it is now widely accepted among educators that “childrendevelop and learn best in the context of a community where they are safe and … theyfeel psychologically secure” (Rushton and Larkin 2001, 32). We are currently exam-ining if such indices of school maladjustment can predict children’s capacity toconcentrate on their school work, a key predictor of academic success, and will report
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational Studies 263
our findings in the near future. It is tempting to suggest that being bullied predatesfeelings of being unsafe (but see below).
Perhaps the most original contribution of the present study is the evidence itprovides that children’s relationship with their teacher moderated the associationbetween level of being bullied and perceived safety in the classroom. In line with the“teacher protection hypothesis” (see Introduction), we showed that among pupils whoperceived that they had a good relationship with their teacher there was no significantcorrelation between level of being bullied and perceived safety in the classroom,whereas this correlation was significant among pupils who perceived that they had apoorer relationship with their teacher. No such moderation effect was evident forperceived safety in the playground. These findings are relevant to emerging theoriesof bullying and its role in children’s psycho-social development and adjustment. Wesuggest that they add to a growing literature that shows how supportive relationshipscan help victims cope with being bullied (Boulton submitted; Hunter and Borg2006), and in particular they attest to the important role that teachers can play in thisregard.
Recent advances in theories of social support and coping have been enabled by aconsideration of context (DeLongis and Holtzman 2005). The basic idea here is thatspecific sources of social support are likely to vary in importance depending on theirsalience in different contexts. Importantly, the design of our study enabled us to testif the teacher protection hypothesis applied to two different school contexts, namelyclassroom and playground, where the pupil–teacher relationship is more or lesssalient, respectively. Our finding that it did in the former, but not in the latter, contextsuggests that positive effects of social support may indeed be context specific. Putanother way, a good relationship with teacher was shown to be helpful to pupils in thatcontext (classroom) where the relationship manifests itself but not in another context(playground) where pupils and teachers rarely if ever interact and “enact” their rela-tionship. While this context-specific view of social support for bullying is consistentwith our findings it must remain speculative until its status as a robust effect can beestablished in future studies. A more refined test of such a context-specific view ofsocial support for bullying would be provided by a study that examined if pupils’ rela-tionship with their playground supervisors moderated the association between beingbullied and perceived safety in the playground but not the association between beingbullied and perceived safety in other contexts such as the classroom.
The results of the present study also have practical implications. Those thatsupport the teacher protection hypothesis (see above) point to the value of helpingpupils form good relationships with their teachers. Our finding that around one in 20pupils reported that they did not have such a good relationship indicates that weshould not expect this to happen spontaneously for every pupil. While the literatureprovides examples of programmes designed to build good teacher–pupil relationships,it also attests to how difficult this can be in practice (Murray and Malmgren 2005).
Limitations of the present study must also be acknowledged. Not least among thesewas the cross-sectional design employed. Longitudinal studies would allow us to testif being bullied pre-dates perceptions of fear within school or vice versa, or even if thetwo constructs are reciprocally related across time. While the former may seem moreintuitively plausible, other studies have shown reciprocal longitudinal associationsbetween being bullied and other adjustment variables including (1) submissive/non-assertive social behaviour (Fox and Boulton 2006), and (2) self-perceptions (Boulton,Smith, and Cowie submitted).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
264 M.J. Boulton et al.
The actual mechanism through which the pupil–teacher relationship can allowpupils to feel safe in school despite the existence of bullying was not explored in thepresent study. Several viable candidates can be suggested. One intuitively appealingcandidate is that a good pupil–teacher relationship facilitates pupil disclosure of beingbullied to their teachers, since researchers have noted that while this is required inorder for teacher assistance to be mobilised (Hunter, Boyle, and Warden 2004) manypupils do not disclose (Boulton 2005b; Smith et al. 2004). Studies have shown thatpupils’ decision to disclose bullying or refrain from doing so, is a rather complexprocess involving such things as their appraisals, emotions and anticipated levels ofinstrumental and social support (Boulton submitted; Hunter, Boyle, and Warden2004). Additionally, Birch and Ladd (1997) found that three distinct teacher–childrelationship features (dependency, [lack of] conflict and closeness) were related tochildren’s school adjustment (but they did not measure feeling [un]safe). It wouldseem reasonable to suggest that these three features be considered candidates for themechanism(s) through which teachers can help pupils feel safe despite the presence ofbullying within school.
In the present study, the teacher–pupil relationship was measured via pupil self-report. While Harrison, Clarke and Ungerer (2007) discuss the merits of this source ofdata, they also point out the value of soliciting teachers’ views. Hence, future studieswould do well to consider using both.
Despite these limitations and caveats, the present study had several strengths. Thesample was relatively large and associations between level of being bullied andperceptions of safety could not be due to shared method variance since the former wasassessed with peer nominations and the latter with self-reports. Moreover, themeasures employed had good psychometric properties.
In conclusion, this study provides the most detailed data to date to show that levelof being bullied is associated with perceived fear in classroom and playground, andthat relationship with teacher can moderate this association in the former context. Inline with a growing literature, the findings support the view that while the teacher–pupil relationship can help mitigate the harmful effects of bullying, especially in theclassroom, more needs to be done to understand how such relationships can be estab-lished and nurtured, and how relationship with other people might do likewise in othercontexts.
Notes on contributorsMichael J. Boulton is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Chester. He has beenconducting research on bullying and aggression among children for over 20 years. He has aparticular interest in identifying factors that may moderate and mitigate the harmful effects ofbullying.
The co-authors of this paper were undergraduate students who shared the same interest andcollected the data reported here for their final year dissertations.
ReferencesBaron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82.
Beran, T., and L. Tutty. 2002. Children’s reports of bullying and safety at school. CanadianJournal of School Psychology 17: 1–14.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational Studies 265
Birch, S.H., and G.W. Ladd. 1997. The teacher-child relationship and children’s early schooladjustment. Journal of School Psychology 35: 61–79.
Bjorkqvist, K., K.M. Legerspetz, and A. Kaukiainen. 1992. Do girls manipulate and boys fight?Developmental trends regarding direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior 18:117–27.
Blatchford, P. 1998. Social life in schools. London: Falmer Press.Boulton, M.J. Submitted. The discourse of physical, verbal and social exclusion peer victim-
ization to teachers, parents and best friends by junior school pupils: The influence ofperceived social support, level of victimization and adjustment.
Boulton, M.J. 1993a. Proximate causes of aggressive fighting in middle school children.British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 231–44.
Boulton, M.J. 1993b. Aggressive fighting in British middle school children. EducationalStudies 19: 19–39.
Boulton, M.J. 1997. Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope.British Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 223–33.
Boulton, M.J. 1999. Concurrent and longitudinal relationships between children’s play-ground behaviour and social preference, victimization and bullying. Child Development70: 944–54.
Boulton, M.J. 2005a. Predicting changes in children’s self-perceptions from playground socialactivities and interactions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23: 1–19.
Boulton, M.J. 2005b. School peer counselling for bullying services as a source of socialsupport: An interview study with secondary school pupils. British Journal of Guidanceand Counselling 33: 485–94.
Boulton, M.J. 2008. Pupils’ perceptions of bullying and disruptions to concentration andattention to school work. Pastoral Care in Education 26: 83–9.
Boulton, M.J., C. Chau, C. Whitehand, K. Amataya, and L. Murray. 2009. Concurrent andshort-term longitudinal associations between peer victimisation and school and recessliking during middle childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 207–21.
Boulton, M.J., P.K. Smith, and H. Cowie. Submitted. Short-term longitudinal relationshipsbetween children’s peer victimisation/bullying experiences and self-perceptions: Evidencefor reciprocity.
Boulton, M.J., R. Spells, B. Nicholas, G. Holman, E. Laxton, E. Williams, H. Woodmansey,and E. Duke. Submitted. Associations between perceptions of personal safety in class-room and playground and ability to concentrate on school work.
Boulton, M.J., M. Trueman, C. Chau, C. Whitehand, and K. Amatya. 1999. Concurrent andlongitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: Implications for befriendinginterventions. Journal of Adolescence 22: 461–6.
Boulton, M.J., M. Trueman, and L. Murray. 2008. Associations between peer victimization,fear of future victimization and disrupted classroom concentration among junior schoolpupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology 78: 473–89.
Boulton, M.J., M. Trueman, and K. Rotenberg. 2007. User perceptions of process-outcomelinkages in pupil peer counselling for bullying services in the UK. British Journal ofGuidance and Counselling 35: 175–87.
Boulton, M.J., and K. Underwood. 1992. Bully/victim problems among middle schoolchildren. British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 73–87.
Cowie, H., and O. Oztug. 2008. pupils’ perceptions of safety at school. Pastoral Care inEducation 26: 59–67.
Craig, W.M., and D.J. Pepler. 1997. Observations of bullying and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 13: 41–57.
Crick, N., and M.A. Bigbee. 1998. Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66: 337–47.
DeLongis, A., and S. Holtzman. 2005. Coping in context: The role of stress, social support,and personality in coping. Journal of Personality 73: 1–24.
Eslea, M., E. Menesini, Y. Morita, M. O’Moore, J. Mora-Merchan, B. Pereira, and P.K.Smith. 2004. Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven coun-tries. Aggressive Behaviour 30: 71–83.
Fox, C., and M.J. Boulton. 2006. Longitudinal associations between social skills problemsand different types of peer victimisation. Violence and Victims 21: 383–400.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
266 M.J. Boulton et al.
Frisen, A., K. Holmqvist, and D. Oscarsson. 2008. 13 year olds’ perception of bullying:Definitions, reasons for victimisation and experience of adult responses. EducationalStudies 34: 105–17.
Hamre, B., and R. Pianta. 2001. Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory ofchildren’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development 72: 625–38.
Harrison, L.J., L. Clarke, and J. Ungerer. 2007. Children’s drawings provide a new perspectiveon teacher-child relationship quality and school adjustment. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly 22: 55–71.
Hawker, D.S.J., and M.J. Boulton. 2000. Twenty years’ research on peer victimization andpsychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry 41: 441–55.
Hodges, E.V., M. Boivin, F. Vitaro, and W.M. Bukowski. 1999. The power of friendship:Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology35: 94–101.
Hodges, E.V., M. Malone, and D.G. Perry. 1997. Individual risk and social risk as interactingdeterminants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology 33: 1032–9.
Hunter, S.C., and M. Borg. 2006. The influence of emotional reaction on help seeking byvictims of school bullying. Educational Psychology 26: 813–26.
Hunter, S.C., J.M. Boyle, and D. Warden. 2004. Help-seeking amongst child and adolescentvictims of peer aggression and bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74:375–90.
Kochenderfer, B.J., and G.W. Ladd. 1996. Peer victimisation: Cause or consequence of schoolmaladjustment? Child Development 67: 1305–17.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., and M. Pelletier. 2007. Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying:Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping with peer victimiza-tion. Journal of School Psychology 46: 431–53.
Murray, C., and K. Malmgren. 2005. Implementing a teacher-student relationship program ina high-poverty urban school. Journal of School Psychology 43: 137–52.
Noaks, J., and L. Noaks. 2000. Violence in school: Risk, safety, and fear of crime.Educational Psychology in Practice 16: 70–3.
Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.Owens, L., A. Daly, and P. Slee. 2005. Sex and age differences in victimisation and conflict
resolution among adolescents in a South Australian school. Aggressive Behavior 31: 1–12.Pellegrini, A.D., K. Kato, P. Blatchford, and E. Baines. 2002. A short-term longitudinal study of
children’s playground games across the first year of school: Implications for social compe-tence and adjustment to school. American Educational Research Journal 39: 991–1015.
Pepler, D.J., W.M. Craig, J.A. Connolly, A. Yuile, L. McMaster, and D. Jiang. 2006. Adevelopmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior 32: 376–84.
Pianta, R., and M. Stuhlman. 2004. Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in thefirst years of school. School Psychology Review 33: 444–58.
Rigby, K. 1996. Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. London: Jessica Kingsley.Rushton, S., and E. Larkin. 2001. Shaping the learning environment: Connecting developmen-
tally appropriate practices to brain research. Early Childhood Education Journal 29: 25–33.Salmivalli, C. 1999. Participants’ role approach to school bullying. Journal of Adolescence
22: 453–9.Scheithauer, H., T. Hayer, F. Petermann, and G. Jugert. 2006. Physical, verbal, and relational
forms of bullying among German students: Age trends, gender differences and correlates.Aggressive Behavior 32: 261–75.
Schwartz, D., A. Gorman, J. Kakamoto, and R. Toblin. 2005. Victimization in the peer groupand children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology 97: 425–35.
Sharp, S. 1995. How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal wellbe-ing and educational progress of secondary school students. Educational and ChildPsychology 12: 81–8.
Slee, P.T. 1993. Bullying: A preliminary investigation of its nature and the effects of socialcognition. Early Child Development and Care 87: 47–57.
Slee, P.T. 1995. Bullying in the playground: The impact of inter-personal violence onAustralian children’s perceptions of their play environment. Children’s Environments12: 320–7.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
Educational Studies 267
Slee, P.T., and K. Rigby. 1993. Australian school children’s self appraisal of interpersonalrelations: The bullying experience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 23: 273–82.
Smith, P.K., L. Talamelli, H. Cowie, P. Naylor, and P. Chauhan. 2004. Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology 74: 565–81.
Tapper, K., and M.J. Boulton. 2004. Sex differences in levels of physical, verbal and indirectaggression amongst primary school children and their associations with beliefs aboutaggression. Aggressive Behavior 30: 123–45.
Yoon, J.S. 2004. Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education andTreatment of Children 27: 37–45.
Yoon, J.S., and K. Kerber. 2003. Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and interventionstrategies. Research in Education 69: 27–35.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f W
aika
to]
at 0
0:41
13
July
201
4
