Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

Bully/victim students & classroom climate

using a range of measures, this research compares 

individual student perceptions of ‘school climate’ in several 

South Australian single sex and coeducational schools. The 

results indicate that some students’ perceptions of their 

‘classroom climate’ may reflect their involvement in bully/

victim interactions with their peers. These findings suggest 

that it may be possible for teachers to identify victims, bullies 

and bully-victims among those students who are unhappy 

in the classroom situation. School staff may then be able to 

work with these students to reduce bullying in the school 

context.

by

Shoko yoneyama & 

Ken Rigby

M uch of the previous research into the characteristics of students who are frequently involved in bully/victim problems at school has focused on personality factors. For example, it has

been reported that students identified as bullies tend to be highly aggressive (Olweus 1993) and Machiavellian (Sutton & Keogh 2000), and to have negative attitudes towards victims (Rigby 1997). Victims, on the other hand, tend to be relatively introverted (Slee & Rigby 1993) and non- assertive (Olweus 1993). Both bullies and victims are prone to depression and poor mental health (Rigby 2003; Salmon, Jones & Smith 1998). Little has been reported, however, on how students who are continually involved in aggressive, one-sided conflicts with peers view the climate or ethos of the classrooms in which they spend the bulk of their time at school. These include students who are commonly identified as “bullies”, students who are viewed as “victims” and students who sometimes engage in bullying and are themselves bullied, that is so-called bully-victims. Collectively they are described in the literature on bullying as those involved in bully/victim problems. Understanding how such students perceive the classroom climate is important for at least two reasons. First, if, as seems likely, students involved in bully/victim problems do view the classroom climate differently from other students, then differences expressed in their classroom behaviour may provide a clue to their bully/victim status. They could be more readily identified and provided with

status. They could be more readily identified and provided with 34 Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 25

34 Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 25 NUMBER 3 2006

the necessary support or counselling. Second, it has been suggested that peer victimisation can be reduced through improving the classroom climate (Yoneyama 1999; Yoneyama & Naito 2003), for example, through better classroom management techniques (Roland & Galloway 2002.). If this can be done, benefits would accrue especially to those students who are continually being victimised by peers. Not only might we expect a reduction in students being victimised at school, but, in addition, these students might be expected to feel more positive about the classroom climate, with improved outcomes for their academic and social development.

Classroom climate

Classroom climate is a term first coined by Moos (1974) that describes the main features of the atmosphere, ethos or milieu of the learning environment in which students acquire (or fail to acquire) knowledge, skills and attitudes deemed relevant to their education and social develop- ment. Although there is no precise consensus on what constitutes a positive classroom climate, its features include what may be termed “a supportive classroom environment” in which students feel personally supported and respected by teachers and enjoy positive relationships with others in the class. In addition, a positive classroom climate is one that is stimulating, task-oriented and orderly. The quality of the classroom climate is seen as determined largely by the contributions made by the teacher and also the profile of students attending the class. A distinction can be made between “classroom climate” as it is experienced in primary schools and in secondary schools. In primary schools, students typically have the same teacher for lessons every school day, the same classroom and are with the same classmates. In secondary schools, students are commonly taught by a number of different teachers, sometimes in different places (for instance in science laboratories and art rooms) and sometimes with different classmates. Hence any measure of the climate must derive from what has been experienced in a variety of contexts. It is more akin to what is sometimes called the “school climate”, a concept that takes into account a wider range of school influences.

In this study, we make an important distinc- tion between the classroom climate as it is reflected collectively in averaged judgments made by a group of students, and the classroom climate as it is perceived by each individual student. The former has been of primary interest in some recent studies, for example, in studies undertaken in Norway by Roland and Galloway (2002) and in Israel by Khoury-Kassabri et al. (2004). These researchers have reported that relatively low levels of bullying are to be found in schools where there is a positive classroom climate. However, interest in the present study was in the variability of individual percep- tions, and particularly in how the judgments made by individual students varied from the averaged value for their school. In other words, we were interested in student judgments that were relative to other students’ ratings of the same classroom climate – or more precisely, since the study was undertaken in secondary schools, with judgments based upon classroom experiences in a range of different contexts provided by the school. Assessment of classroom climate has been undertaken in various ways. In some studies, it is based on the assessment made by teachers (Hughes & Cavell 1999); in others, by students (Wilson 2004), or by both (Roland & Galloway 2002). With older students, questionnaire methods have generally been preferred. One such widely used measure is the ‘School Learning Environment Scale’ (Marjoribanks 1994, 2002). Although it is described as a school climate scale, it suited our purposes in that it focused on the atmosphere experienced in classrooms in a broad school context. Representative examples of items in the scale are provided in Figure 1.

bullying

Bullying is a form of aggressive behaviour that has been widely researched in many countries in recent years. It has been shown to be prevalent in all schools and to have serious negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of students who are frequently victimised (Rigby 2003). Bullying may be defined as aggressive behaviour by which an individual or group abuses their greater power by threatening and generally oppressing a targeted individual (Farrington 1993; Rigby 1996). It can be assessed reliably using multi-item scales describing

figure 1 Sample items from the  School Climate Scale

Imaginative context

Teachers are always trying out new and often exciting ways to do things in this school.

This school is full of fairly dull and uninteresting students and teachers – generally it is not a very exciting place to be. (Reverse scored.)

Interpersonal context

Most of my teachers in this school are very interested in the personal problems of students.

This school is a very impersonal place – the teachers don’t seem to want to know the students. (Reverse scored.)

Regulative context

Teachers often discuss with us why the school has certain rules and why they are important.

Teachers make too many rules that have to be obeyed. (Reverse scored.)

Instructional context

Most of my classes are well planned by teachers.

Often the teachers in my classes give the impression that they are not very interested in what they are teaching. (Reverse scored.)

Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 25 NUMBER 3 2006

35

aggressive forms of behaviour in which bullying is involved, at least in the Australian context. For example, Rigby (1998) reported a study in which the concurrent validity of a multi-item self-report scale was supported by significant correlations (r >.40) with relevant results obtained from 740 Australian adolescent students using a peer nomination method. Ideally, the identification of victimisation should employ both kinds of measures (Cornell, Sheras & Cole 2006). However, permission from state education and university ethics authorities to use peer nomination methods is currently not forthcoming.

Theoretical considerations

There were theoretical grounds for expecting that students involved in bully/victim problems would be less predisposed than others at their school to view their classroom climate in a positive light. Victims of bullying could be expected to bring to the classroom negative feelings about other students who had partici- pated in victimising them or who had observed them being oppressed. Although some perpetra- tors could be from other classes, most bullying is conducted by students in the same class (Genta, Menesini & Fonzi 1996). Feelings such as fear of repeated victimisation and antagonism towards perpetrators and bystanders would seem likely to colour the victims’ judgments about classroom climate. Students who had repeatedly bullied others might also be expected to express negative judgments about the classroom climate, first because they tend to be uncooperative in their social behaviour (Rigby, Cox & Black 1997) and, second, because they tend to misbehave more frequently than others and to engage in delinquent behaviour (Rigby & Cox 1996) that draws censure from school authorities. As discussed above, there is persuasive research which suggests that schools that are seen by students in general as having a negative classroom climate are likely to have relatively high levels of aggressive and bullying interac- tions between students. It seems probable that the minority of students who are continually involved in such interactions would be the most negative in their judgments of the classroom climate.

36 Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 25 NUMBER 3 2006

Aims and hypotheses 

The general aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the individual percep- tions of the classroom climate among Australian secondary school students (relative to other students in the same school) and their bully/ victim status (i.e. as bullies, victims or bully- victims), that is, how they were categorised through self-report data on their experience of aggression and victimisation. It was hypoth- esised that judgments of classroom climate would be less positive among students who were identified as i) bullies ii) victims and iii) bully-victims than others who are not involved in bully/victim problems. Given some reported differences in the nature of bullying associated with gender (see Crick & Grotpeter 1995), it was considered appropriate to examine possible dif- ferences in the results for boys and girls.

Method

Questionnaires were constructed using the following measures:

The school climate scale

This was an adaptation of the School Learning

Environment Scale (Marjoribanks 1994, 2002). It

is a 40-item scale with five response categories.

The items were presented as statements with the instruction: “These questions are to help you to describe what goes on in your classroom.” The measure contains items that reflect four different

aspects of the classroom climate: i) imaginative, ii) interpersonal, iii) regulative and iv) instructional aspects. The response categories were: “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “not certain” (3), “agree” (4) and “strongly agree” (5). Examples of items corresponding to these categories are given in Figure 1. Note that some of the items are “reverse scored” that is disagreeing with

a negatively keyed item indicates a positive

attitude towards the classroom climate. The scale value ranged from 40 to 200, with greater values indicating a more positive perception on school/ classroom climate.

The victimisation scale

This is a 30-item measure adapted from Rigby and Bagshaw (2001). It consists of statements

describing aggressive acts that may have been directed by a student or group of students towards the respondent during the current school year. The respondent is asked to say how often he or she has been treated in each of the 30 ways:

that is, never (1), sometimes (2) or often (3). It was stipulated that the respondent should base frequency estimates on negative treatments that were delivered by peers who were in some way more powerful. (This stipulation was to enable us to obtain estimates of being victimised as opposed to taking part in conflicts with peers of similar or equal strength or power). The content of this measure includes items indicating being physically bullied, e.g. “I was deliberately hit or kicked”; being verbally bullied, e.g. “I was called names I didn’t like”; and being bullied in an indirect way, e.g. “I was avoided or ignored by people”. The scale value ranged from 30 to 90, with higher value indicating more frequent experiences of victimisation.

The bullying scale 

For this measure, the items in the victimisa- tion scale were reworded to describe actions implying bullying being directed by the respondent towards another person. For example: “I deliberately hit and kicked someone”; “I called people names”; “I avoided or ignored someone”. Again the instructions indicated that the acts in question were directed towards a less powerful person. Response categories were those used in the victimisation scale. The scale value ranged from 30 to 90 with high values indicating more frequent experience of bullying others.

Sample

The sample consisted of 531 students attending secondary schools in Years 8 and 9 in Adelaide, South Australia. Respondents were drawn from five schools as follows: School A, 204 boys; School B, 107 girls; School C, 88 boys and 28 girls; School D, 23 boys and 22 girls and School E, 31 boys and 28 girls. The mean age for boys was 14.1 years, for girls 13.9 years. In accordance with ethical requirements, only respondents who had parental permission for participating in this study were included.

Results

Scale scores: reliabilities and 

differences between subgroups 

First, a check was made on the reliability of the scales. These were, in each case, high with alpha values of .94 for the school climate scale; .93 for the victimisation scale and .94 for the bullying scale (in each case N=531). Results on the scales were examined for the five different schools. On the school climate scale, the mean scores for boys ranged from 120.35 to 144.61; for girls they ranged from 123.61 to 151.36. Given that the neutral point for this scale was 120, the obtained mean score for both boys and girls at each of the schools suggests that in general the perceived school/classroom climate at the selected schools was not negative (see Table 1). Further analyses indicated that the school/ classroom climate at the two single-sex schools, A (boys) and B (girls), was not perceived as signifi- cantly different: t= 0.52, df= 309, p >.05. However, significant differences were found between the three coeducational schools C, D and E. Results from a two-way ANOVA with sex and schools as factors indicated that the school/classroom

TABLe 1 Mean scores and standard deviations on scale measures of  school climate, peer victimisation and bullying others 

SCHOOLS

SCHOOL

VICTIMISATION

BULLYING

CLIMATE

OTHERS

A. Boys only (N=204)

125.38

46.70

43.48

(24.38)

(11.62)

(12.70)

B. Girls only (N =107)

126.85

43.36

38.30

(22.69)

(10.40)

(8.03)

C. Boys (N = 88)

127.66

46.27

42.02

(21.58)

(10.70)

(9.33)

Girls (N = 28)

138.11

46.82

38.75

(17.23)

(8.49)

(5.72)

D. Boys (N = 23)

144.61

45.00

42.04

(16.87)

(6.45)

(5.24)

Girls (N = 22)

151.36

41.32

38.82

(15.59)

(7.11)

(5.50)

E. Boys (N =31)

120.35

49.26

46.77

(17.38)

(13.45)

(13.77)

Girls (N = 28)

123.61

47.00

43.43

(18.79)

(11.30)

(8.87)

Note: The standard deviations are given in parentheses

figure 2 Student perceptions: Mean z scores on the  classroom climate scale

0.4 Boys Girls 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 Bullies Victims Bully-victims Others -0.8 Standardised scores
0.4
Boys
Girls
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
Bullies
Victims
Bully-victims
Others
-0.8
Standardised scores

climate at these schools differed significantly: F = 23.51, p <.001. In addition, there were significant gender differences, with girls rating the school/ classroom climate more positively: F = 5.59, p <.05. Given these school differences, it was considered desirable to compute new scores (z scores) for individual students that indicated degree of deviation from the means for their school. These scores reflected how positively or negatively students rated their school/classroom climate relative to other students at the same school. An examination of mean scores for schools on the Victimisation and Bullying Scales by t-test showed that School A (Boys’ school) recorded higher scores on both victimisation: t = 2.46, p <.05, and bullying others: t = 4.39, p <.001 than School B (Girls’ school). Results for two- way ANOVA indicated that the three coeduca- tional schools differed significantly with respect to reported victimisation: F = 3.03, p <.05, and also reportedly bullying others: F = 5.47, p <.001. Overall, at the coeducational schools, boys scored significantly higher than girls on bullying others: F = 5.82, p <.05, but did not differ from girls on being victimised: F =1.34, p >.05. In summary, from these statistical analyses it may be concluded that some of the schools in the study differed from others in the appraisal students made of the school/classroom climate, and that boys, in general, were more likely to report engaging in bullying than girls. In the single-sex schools, boys appeared to be victimised more than girls; this gender difference was not found in the coeducational schools.

38 Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 25 NUMBER 3 2006

differences in student perceptions 

of school/classroom climate 

according to bully/victim status

Categories indicating bully/victim status were derived from scores on the Victimisation and Bullying Scales as follows:

Victims These were students who scored more than one standard deviation (SD) above the mean on the victimisation scale, but below that level on the bullying scale.

Bullies These scored above one SD on the Bullying Scale, but below that level on the Vic- timisation Scale.

Bully-victims These scored above one SD on both scales.

Others These were students not captured in the above categories. These were presumed to be relatively uninvolved in bully/victim problems at school.

The percentages of students in each of the categories were as follows: Bullies: 6.9% of boys and 3.2% of girls; Victims: 9.5% of boys and 11.4% of girls; Bully-victims: 6.9% of boys and 2.7% of girls; Others: 76.6% of boys and 82.7% of girls. Clearly these estimates suggest that a relatively small proportion of students are involved in high levels of conflict involving bullying at school. Nevertheless, it was evident that boys were more likely to be involved in bully/victim problems than girls, especially as bullies, with over twice the proportion of boys to girls in this category. Mean scores for the subgroups are given in Figure 2. For both boys and girls, the mean scores on appraisal of school/classroom climate are highest for those with low involvement in bully/victim problems. Comparisons between subgroups on perceived school/classroom climate were undertaken for each gender separately using the Least Significant Difference t-test. The results indicated that for boys, the students who were least involved in bully/victim problems (“others”) were more positive in their appraisals of the school/classroom climate than either bullies (p <.05) or victims (p <.01) or bully- victims (p <.05). For girls, those least involved in bully/victim problems (“others”) scored higher in appraising their school/classroom climate than victims, but there were no other comparisons that were significant.

As there were no significant differences for comparisons between bully/victim subgroups, a final analysis was conducted comparing those least involved in bully/victim problems with all others (combining bullies, victims and bully-victims) taking into account sex differ- ences through a two-way ANOVA. This analysis indicated that those involved in bully/victim problems of one kind or another were more likely than others to rate the school/classroom climate negatively: F = 15.49, p <.001. Sex differ- ences were not significant: F = 2.61. p >.05. We may conclude that involvement in bully/victim problems at school is likely to be associated with relatively negative perceptions of the school/ classroom climate regardless of gender.

discussion

First, we should recognise that in none of the five Australian schools sampled in this study did the young adolescent students who responded to our questionnaire view their school/classroom climate, in general, negatively. There were nev- ertheless substantial differences between schools on how positively they perceived the climate; for example, the mean for boys at School D was over 20% higher than the mean for boys at School E. In addition, there were large differences between how individual students perceived their school/ classroom climate relative to other students at their school. These differences between students were of primary interest to us in this study. It was confirmed that adolescent students who are involved in bully/victim problems at school are less positive in their appraisals of the school/ classroom climate than other students. For both boys and girls, students who were categorised as victims were more likely than those relatively uninvolved in bully/victim problems to view the school/classroom climate less positively. However, a sex difference should be noted. Although boys categorised as bullies or bully- victims were more likely than the “uninvolved” to perceive the school/classroom climate less positively, this was not found to be true of girls. The failure to find significant differences for girls in these comparisons may have been due to the fact that relatively few students fell into the categories of bully or bully-victim compared with boys, and generalisations about students in these

categories are based on quite small samples. We can speculate that victimised students, regardless of their sex, are inclined to dislike the school/classroom climate because their classroom is likely to contain students who have bullied them in the past, and may continue to do so during lessons with, for example, sly, denigrat- ing comments or insulting gestures. Victimised students may also be comparatively negative in their appraisals of the classroom environment because they feel that they are not well regarded by others in the class. There is, in fact, evidence that attitudes of students towards victims are typically negative, especially so in early adolescence (Rigby 1997). Victims may be despised by some students for “not standing up to the bullies”. In addition, victims have been typically characterised as lacking in confidence, being depressed and being relatively uncoop- erative – qualities that are not admired by other students (Rigby 2002). Such qualities may have a genetic basis and/or be a consequence of family influence. In any event, they may not only lead to victims being disliked, but, as Egan and Perry (1998) have shown in a longitudinal study, they may actually elicit bullying behaviour from those predisposed to bullying others, which would further exacerbate the negative view victimised students take of their school/classroom climate. Why boy bullies were also less positive about the school/classroom climate may in part be explained by factors not directly related to school, such as personality and/or family influence. Like victims (though arguably for different reasons), they are inclined to be depressed and behave in an uncooperative way. Again, such characteristics are likely to affect negatively the way they view given social environments, including the classroom. In addition, bullies are prone to act in an aggressive and delinquent manner, thereby drawing attention and opposition from teachers who naturally seek to promote obedient behaviour, as well as from other students who do not admire aggressive students. The tension experienced in their relations with teachers and some other students may increase the likelihood that they will see the school/classroom climate in a relatively negative light (see Rigby & Bagshaw 2003). It is worth noting that among boys it was the bully-victims who were particularly negative in their appraisals of the school/classroom climate.

It has been reported that this group of students are most likely to be psychologically hurt (Rigby 2003). Identifying and helping these students is a high priority. We have seen that the results are, in general, more in accordance with the hypothesis for boys than for girls. In part, this outcome may be explained by noting the much smaller sample of girls and especially the much smaller proportion of bullies and bully-victims in the data for girls. It may also be that being a bully has different impli- cations for appraising a school/classroom climate for girls than for boys. This may be because the kind of bullying perpetrated by girls tends to be relatively indirect, for example, through the exclusion of others, rather than physical, as is the case for boys (Crick & Grotpeter 1995). Indirect bullying appears less likely to bring the perpetra- tor into conflict with school authorities and is less likely to result in girls being punished for victim- ising others. Girl bullies may have less to resent and, therefore, be less inclined to make hostile judgments about the school/classroom climate, and the role of teachers in creating the climate. The results of the study, which suggest a link between students’ involvement with bully/ victim problems and their perceptions of school/ classroom climate, may have implications for student learning. It seems likely that the negative perceptions of school/classroom climate that are characteristic of students involved in bully/victim problems may serve to hinder their learning and to disadvantage them academically. Further, the findings that, i), boys are more likely to be involved in bully/victim problems than girls, especially as bullies, and that, ii), the association between such involvement and negative perceptions of the school/classroom climate is more evident among boys, may help to explain why boys are often at greater risk than girls in failing to acquire academic knowledge and skills in the school learning envi- ronment (see Downey & Vogt-Yuan 2005). This study has practical implications for teachers addressing bullying in schools. Identify- ing students who are involved in bully/victim problems at school through direct observations is not easy. Most bullying goes on outside classrooms in the playing areas during breaks or on the way to and from school. Moreover, most bullying is not reported to teachers (Rigby & Barnes 2002). Teachers may nevertheless pick up cues that a

40 Youth Studies Australia VOLUME 25 NUMBER 3 2006

student is involved in bullying, either as a bully or as a victim or both from the student’s behaviour and demeanour in the classroom. It may be evident to the teacher that the student is feeling negative about being in the class. This may be revealed in a reluctance to participate in class activities, skipping classes, an inability to concentrate, a decline in academic performance and, specifically, in the case of bullies, hostility towards teacher authority. This study suggests that a closer attention to such behaviours may enable teachers to identify students who are involved in bully/victim problems so that appropriate action can be taken. On the basis of this study we would recommend that teachers pay particular attention to the behaviour of children who appear to be especially unhappy in the classroom when they are with other students. Although there may be

a variety of reasons for a child disliking being in

class, one that should certainly be investigated is that he or she is being bullied by peers. Evidence of this may be apparent in comparatively subtle forms of bullying occurring between students even during lessons. Comparing notes with other teachers about “unhappy students” could help to eliminate the possibility that the perceived unhappiness is related to being in a class with

a particular teacher and/or having to attend to

disliked lesson content. If there are cumulative grounds for suspecting that a boy or a girl is being

bullied (or in the case of boys, bullying others), it

is recommended that teachers carefully observe

the child’s behaviour in the playground (where most overt bullying occurs) and also discuss the matter with students who are prepared to provide appropriate peer support in the case of victims and to work with teachers in encouraging more prosocial behaviour among bullies. A further recommendation is that teachers monitor their own behaviour in their interactions with students in class to determine whether they can help to provide a school/classroom climate in which children involved in bully/victim problems can feel more accepted.

References

Cornell, D.G., Sheras, P.L. & Cole, J.C.M. 2006, ‘Assessment of bullying’, in Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice, eds S.R. Jimmerson, M. Furlong & N.J. Mahwah,

Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, USA, pp.191-209. Crick, N. & Grotpeter, J. 1995, ‘Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment’, Child Development, v.66, pp.710-22. Downey, D.B. & Vogt-Yuan A.S. 2005, ‘Sex differences in school performance during high school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations’, Sociological Quarterly, v.46, pp.299-321. Egan, S.K. & Perry, D.G. 1998, ‘Does low self-regard invite victimization?’, Developmental Psychology, v.34,

pp.299-309.

Farrington, D.P. 1993, ‘Understanding and preventing bullying’, in eds M. Tonny & N. Morris, Crime and Justice, v.17, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Genta, M.L., Menesini, E. & Fonzi, A. 1996, ‘Bullies and victims in central and southern Italy’, European Journal of Psychology of Education, v.11, pp.97-110. Hughes, J.N. & Cavell, T. 1999, ‘Influence of the teacher–student relationship on childhood conduct problems: A prospective study’, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, v.28, n.2, pp.173-84. Khoury-Kassabri, M., Benbenishy R., Astor, R. & Zeira, A. 2004, ‘The contribution of community, family, and school variables to student victimization’, American Journal of Community Psychology, v.34, pp.187-205. Marjoribanks, K. 1994, ‘Families, schools and students’s learning environment’, International Journal of Educational Research, v.21, n.4, pp.439-555. —— 2002, Family and school capital: Towards a context theory of students’ school outcomes, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston & London. Moos, R.H. 1974, The social climate scales: An overview, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto. Olweus, D. 1993, Bullying at school, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford & Cambridge, MA. Rigby, K. 1996, Bullying in schools – and what to do about it, ACER, Melbourne. —— 1997, ‘Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school students’, Irish Journal of Psychology, v.18, n.2, pp.202-20. —— 1998, Manual for the Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ), The Professional Reading Guide, Point Lonsdale, Victoria. —— 2002, New perspectives on bullying, Jessica Kingsley, London. —— 2003, ‘Consequences of bullying in schools’, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, v.48, pp.583-90. Rigby, K. & Bagshaw, D. 2001, ‘What hurts ? The reported consequences of negative interactions with peers among Australian students’, Children Australia, v.26, n.4, pp.35-41.

—— 2003, ‘Prospects of adolescent students collabo- rating with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conflict in schools’, Educational Psychology, v.32,

pp.535-46.

Rigby, K. & Barnes, A. 2002, ‘To tell or not to tell:

The victimised student’s dilemma’, Youth Studies Australia, v.21, n.3, pp.33-36. Rigby, K. & Cox, I.K. 1996, ‘The contributions of bullying and low self-esteem to acts of delinquency among Australian teenagers’, Personality and Individual Differences, v.21, n.4, pp.609-12. Rigby, K., Cox, I.K. & Black, G. 1997, ‘Cooperative- ness and bully/victim problems among Australian school students’, Journal of Social Psychology, v.137, n.3, pp.357-68. Roland, E. & Galloway, D. 2002, ‘Classroom influences on bullying’, Educational Research, v.44, pp.299-312. Salmon, G., Jones, A. & Smith, D.M. 1998, ‘Bullying in school: Self-reported anxiety, depression and self- esteem in secondary school children’, British Medical Journal, v.317, pp.924-25. Slee, P.T. & Rigby, K. 1993, ‘The relationship of Eysenck’s personality factors and self-esteem to bully/victim behaviour in Australian school boys’, Personality and Individual Differences, v.14, pp.371-73. Sutton, J. & Keogh, E. 2000, ‘Social competition in school: Relationships with bullying, Machiavellian- ism and personality’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, v.70, n.3, pp.443-56. Wilson, D. 2004, ‘The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships with aggression and victimization’, Journal of School Health, v.74, n.7, pp.293-99. Yoneyama, S. 1999, The Japanese high school: Silence and resistance, Routledge, London. Yoneyama, S. & Naito, A. 2003, ‘Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan)’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, v.24, n.3, pp.315-30.

AUTHORS

ShokoYoneyama is Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Asian Studies at the University of Adelaide. She is the author of The Japanese high school: Silence and resistance (, Routledge, London), which is a comparative examination of Japanese and Australian secondary schools from the perspective of students.

Email: shoko. yoneyama@adelaide. edu.au

Ken Rigby is an Adjunct Professor in the School of Education at the University of South Australia. He has published widely in the area of bullying in schools. See: http://www. education.unisa.edu. au/bullying/

Email: ken.rigby@unisa. edu.au