Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Bullying

and Victimization

WENDY M. CRAIG, KATHRYN HENDERSON AND

JENNIFER G. MURPHY
Queen’s University, Canada

ABSTRACT In the present study, the effects of both contextual and

individual factors on attitudes toward bullying among prospective
teachers were examined. Contextual factors included type of aggression
and the condition of having witnessed bullying. Individual factors
included sex, age, empathy, sex role orientation and belief in a just
world. A MANCOVA revealed no sex differences, but there was a
significant main effect of the contextual factors on (a) the extent to
which acts were labelled as bullying, (b) the perceived seriousness of
bullying and (c) the likelihood of intervention. Physical types of aggres-
sion were labelled more often as bullying, were viewed more seriously
and were more likely to warrant intervention than verbal aggression.
Multiple regression analysis revealed that type of aggression, witness-
ing the interaction, empathy, masculinity and femininity predicted
intolerant attitudes toward bullying. The results are discussed with
reference to intervening in the problem of bullying.

Introduction
Violence and aggression in schools are a problem in many countries
around the world (e.g. Australia: Rigby and Slee, 1991; Canada: Pepler
et al., 1994; England: Smith and Sharpe, 1994; Italy: Genta et al., 1996;
Japan: Okabayashi, 1996; Scandinavia: Olweus, 1991). One form of
aggression that takes place at school is bullying. Bullying is an inter-
action in which a dominant individual (the bully) repeatedly exhibits

Address correspondence to: Dr Wendy Craig, Department of Psychology, Queen’s

University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N8, Canada. Email: craigw@psyc.queensu.ca

This research was supported by a grant from the Advisory Research Council at
Queen’s University. We would like to thank Sylvia Hains, Andrew Wilson and
the students who participated in this research.

School Psychology International Copyright © 2000 SAGE Publications (London,

Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol. 21(1): 5–21. [0143-0343 (200002) 21:1;
5–21; 011875]

5
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
aggressive behaviour intended to cause distress to a less dominant
individual (the victim) (Olweus, 1991). In Canada, 15 percent of children
reported bullying others more than twice a term while 9 percent of
children reported bullying others on a weekly basis (Charach et al.,
1995). Along with the immediate effects of bullying and victimization,
this behaviour has long-term negative consequences for all those in-
volved; bullies (Farrington, 1993), victims (Olweus, 1984) and the peer
group (El-Sheik et al., 1989). Despite a growth in bullying research over
the past few years, there exists some virtually uncharted territory, i.e.
teachers’ definitions of what constitutes bullying and factors that influ-
ence their intervention efforts. Since teachers are of primary importance
in implementing intervention programmes and they report that behav-
iour problems are a major source of stress (Borg and Falzon, 1989), an
assessment of their attitudes and perspectives on bullying is the logical
next step in the research.
Prospective teachers’ beliefs about bullying may affect their rate of
intervention. In an observational study of playground interactions,
adult supervisors intervened in only 4 percent of bullying conflicts (Craig
and Pepler, 1997). According to Pepler et al. (1994), 85 percent of
teachers reported that they intervene nearly always or often to stop
bullying. In contrast, only 35 percent of students reported that teachers’
intervened in bullying. Similarly, in a questionnaire study, 40 percent of
primary school students and 60 percent of junior high students reported
that teachers try to stop bullying only ‘once in a while’ or ‘almost never’
(Olweus, 1984). Taken together, the results of these studies indicate that
teachers are intervening inconsistently and infrequently. Furthermore,
the discrepancy between teachers’ and students’ reports of intervention
suggest that teachers may not be aware of the extent of bullying or
students may not view teachers as effective interveners.
How cultures and individuals define bullying is an important issue
because it will influence reported prevalence rates and, at a more specific
level, participants’ definitions in a specific incident (Siann et al., 1993).
One of the problems in comparing bullying frequency data across studies
is the variation and lack of consistency in defining what constitutes
bullying behaviour. Variability in the reported prevalence of bullying
across countries may be due in part to the nonuniversal vocabulary used
to define, understand and conceptualize bullying. For example,
Scandinavians use the term ‘mobbing’ to describe bullying incidents,
which carries with it a group inference. Heinemann (1969) defined
‘mobbing’ as uncontrollable group violence against an individual who
disturbed the group’s activity on the school ground. North American
researchers tend to use the word victimization to describe bullying. This
perspective focuses attention on the victim (e.g. Perry et al., 1988). Some
languages, such as French and Spanish, have no appropriate word to

6
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
describe bullying. To some extent, the vocabulary used to describe
bullying may reflect the cultural variations in perceptions of these
interactions. A recognition and consideration of these different perspec-
tives are critical in cross-cultural comparisons of prevalence rates
of bullying. Furthermore, there may be individual differences in defini-
tions of bullying. That is two participants involved in an interaction may
not characterize the behaviours (physical, verbal or social aggression)
as bullying or their theresholds for the behaviours also may be lower.
Thus, to a certain extent, defining an interaction as bullying may be
subjective.
Some of the debate on what constitutes bullying centres around what
forms of behaviour qualify as bullying. Researchers have suggested that
bullying can be manifested in a variety of ways. Direct bullying involves
face to face contact (e.g., physical assault or verbal abuse, whereas
indirect bullying harms others through damage to the peer relationships
or threats of such damage (e.g., retaliating against a peer by excluding
her from one’s peer group; threatening to withdraw a friendship)
(Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Crick, 1995; Olweus, 1991). To date, the majority
of research has examined the prevalence of bullying and children’s
definitions of bullying, but research on teachers’ attitudes toward
bullying is scant (Boutlon, 1997; Siann et al., 1993). In one study,
teachers at two elementary schools were interviewed and administered
questionnaires on definitional issues of bullying (Siann et al., 1993). All
teachers indicated that bullying can be both physical and emotional.
Boulton (1997) found that the majority of teachers believed physical
assaults, verbal threats and forcing students to do something they did
not want to do could be defined as bullying. However, 25 percent of
teachers did not define name calling, spreading rumours, intimidation
by staring or taking others’ belongings as bullying. Furthermore, a
significant proportion of teachers did not view social exclusion as
bullying. If teachers’ definitions of bullying do not include indirect
aggression, it is likely that they do not intervene in these types of
interactions.
A second explanation for teachers’ low observed rates of intervention
is children may hesitate to report bullying. Victims of bullying may
perceive social control agents as inept, uncaring, or unable to protect
them or they may fear further victimization if they ‘tattle’ (Pepler et al.,
1994). If this is the case, teachers may underestimate the prevalence of
bullying because they are simply unaware of the extent of the problem.
It also may be the case that teachers attitudes play a role in their
reactions to bullying (e.g. they minimize bullying when it happens).
Stephenson and Smith (1989) report that 91 percent of teachers ac-
knowledged bullying in the classroom but described it as minimal. In
addition, they found that 25 percent of teachers reported it is helpful to

7
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
ignore bullying. In contrast, Borg and Falzon (1989) reported that
teachers rated cruelty/bullying to be one of the three most serious
problems in the classroom. One goal of the present study was to examine
the individual characteristics of teachers that may contribute to how
inclusive their definition of bullying is, as well as their willingness to
intervene in the problem.
There may be individual differences among teachers that may account
for their intervention efforts. One individual difference factor that may
influence teacher intervention rates is the sex of the teacher. Males tend
to approve of aggression more than females across widely ranging
situations (Smith, 1984). A study of children’s views on bullying revealed
less supportive attitudes toward the victim among males than females
students (Rigby and Slee, 1991). Furthermore, Borg and Falzon (1989)
found that the sex of a teacher influences teachers’ attitudes toward
various undesirable classroom behaviours. Female teachers were more
likely to define more behaviours as undesirable than male teachers,
however male teachers were more likely to rate bullying as more serious.
In contrast, Boulton (1997) reported a small but significant difference in
teachers’ attitudes towards bullying. Female teachers expressed more
negative attitudes towards bullying than males. More research is needed
to clarify these discrepant results. Nonetheless, these studies suggest
that the gender of a teacher is likely to affect whether or not they view
bullying as a problem and their likelihood of intervening.
Biological sex should not be the only thing which determines differ-
ences in attitudes, there may also be a relationship between sex-role
orientation and tolerance of bullying. Sex-role identity may be defined as
the ‘pattern and level of masculine and feminine characteristics adopted
and exhibited in some manner by a person’ (Cook, 1985, p. 3). A person
may be categorized as either masculine or feminine despite biological
sex. In addition, one could theoretically acquire many masculine and
feminine features or have low levels of both. A masculine sex-role may
be denoted by aggressive, independent, unemotional, objective, domi-
nant, competitive and logical/rational characteristics (Cook, 1985). The
feminine sex-role is often typified by emotional, sensitive, expressive,
aware of others’ feelings, tactful, gentle, security-oriented and quiet
characteristics (Cook, 1985). According to most theories, the sex-role is
acquired during the formative years and is relatively stable over time
(Cook, 1985). Askew (1989) argues that schools tend to teach stereo-
typical male values and emphasize independence, assertiveness,
strength and competitiveness. These values may foster bullying and
correspond to the male sex-role. A prospective teacher who is charac-
terized with a masculine sex-role may be less likely to label acts as
‘bullying’ and less likely to intervene than teachers with a feminine sex
role.

8
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
Empathy may be another individual characteristic influencing teach-
ers’ attitudes toward bullying. Researchers have related self-report
measures of empathy with helping behaviour (Mehrabian and Epstein,
1972). Females tend to score higher on measures of empathy than males
(Hoffman, 1977). In addition, the feminine sex-role is positively associ-
ated with empathy (Spence and Helmreich, 1978). It follows that
prospective female teachers who identify with the feminine sex-role may
be more empathetic and consequently more likely to espouse a broad
definition of bullying, view bullying as serious and, as a result, inter-
vene.
A final individual factor investigated in the present study that may
influence teachers’ rates of intervention is the belief in a just world.
Lerner (1980) found that individuals who believe the world is ‘just’ were
more likely to indicate that a person deserves what is coming to them.
Pro-victim attitudes have been associated with a low belief in a ‘just
world’ while those with a strong belief in a ‘just world’ appear to blame
the victim (Rubin and Peplau, 1975). This research has not been
conducted in the area of bullying, although it has been suggested as a
possible explanation for differences in attitudes toward bullying (Rigby
and Slee, 1991).
Although individual characteristics of teachers may directly influence
intervention rates, these individual characteristics may interact with
contextual factors. For the purposes of this research, contextual factors
refer to characteristics of the bullying interaction, such as witnessing the
event, perceived seriousness of the aggression and the type of bullying.
These factors may increase the likelihood that teachers will intervene in
a bullying interaction. It is hypothesized that teachers will respond with
greater frequency to bullying that they witness compared with bullying
that has been reported to them by other students. Furthermore, there
may be different degrees of seriousness attributed to the different types
of bullying (physical, verbal and social exclusion). It is predicted that
physical bullying will be more likely to be labelled bullying, perceived to
be more serious and considered more worthy of intervention than verbal
bullying and social exclusion.
In summary, the research to date has indicated several inconsisten-
cies in examining teachers’ attitudes to bullying. Teachers’ report that
bullying encompasses a wide variety of aggressive acts and that they
consistently intervene in bullying, although some do report it as a minor
problem. In contrast observations of bullying and students’ reports
suggest that teachers rarely intervene. In order to further explore the
discrepancy among these findings, this research examined the indi-
vidual characteristics of teachers and the contextual characteristics of
the bullying interaction that may influence intervention in bullying and
victimization.

9
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
Method

Participants
Participants comprised 82 female and 34 male students (mean age = 25.9
years, SD = 5.0) enrolled in a University Teachers College. A majority of
students (n = 101) reported 1–3 months teaching experience and 15
students reported between 0 and 1 month of experience; four partici-
pants reported having had no experience at all. The majority (n = 101)
had no children of their own; 15 students reported having between one
and four children (mode = 2).

Instruments
The Bullying Attitudes Questionnaire was designed for the present study
to assess individuals’ definitions of bullying, perceived seriousness of
bullying and likelihood of intervention. In this questionnaire, there were
eighteen vignettes which varied according to: (a) the type of bullying
depicted (physical, verbal, social exclusion) and (b) teachers witnessing
or not witnessing the bullying. The fully crossed design resulted in six
unique types of vignette, with three vignettes of each type (i.e. physical
bullying not witnessed, physical bullying witnessed, verbal bullying
witnessed, verbal bullying not witnessed, social exclusion witnessed,
social exclusion not witnessed).
Each scenario included the elements of bullying according to Olweus’
definition (i.e., a negative action, an imbalance of power, repetition over
time). For example, negative action was operationalized as the victim’s
pain in the scenario. An imbalance of power was depicted as an older
child acting against a younger child without evidence of provocation.
Repetition over time was demonstrated by the child having experienced
the same negative action numerous times. Following each vignette were
three questions: (a) How serious is this conflict?; (b) How likely are you
to intervene in this situation?; and (c) Would you call this bullying? For
the first two questions, participants responded on a 5-point Likert-type
scale (item scores range from 1 to 5) and, on the last question, the
response format was yes/no (item scores range from 0 to 1). For each of
the three questions, the mean response within each of the six types of
vignette was computed, thereby creating 18 scales which served as
dependent measures in the analyses. Measures of internal consistency
for these scales appear in Table 1.
Personal Attributes Questionnaire. The 24-item short form of the
Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence et al., 1974) was
administered to assess the gender-related attributes of agency (stere-
otypical masculine) and communion (stereotypical feminine). For each
bipolar characteristic, respondents circled a number between 1 and 5
(scored as 0 through 4) to indicate their location along the continuum.

10
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and internal consistency for
measures of labelling of bullying, perceived seriousness of interaction
and likelihood of intervention
Measure Mean SD Cronbach’s α

Bullying
Physical witness 0.87 0.21 0.78
Physical non-witness 0.88 0.26 0.69
Verbal witness 0.85 0.25 0.76
Verbal non-witness 0.78 0.33 0.72
Social exclusion witness 0.46 0.38 0.75
Social exclusion non-witness 0.39 0.36 0.70
Perceived seriousness
Physical witness 3.59 0.49 0.80
Physical non-witness 2.96 0.72 0.80
Verbal witness 3.24 0.59 0.74
Verbal non-witness 2.64 0.74 0.80
Social exclusion witness 2.47 0.82 0.82
Social exclusion non-witness 2.08 0.78 0.85
Likelihood of intervention
Physical witness 3.76 0.42 0.82
Physical non-witness 3.16 0.66 0.80
Verbal witness 3.45 0.56 0.75
Verbal non-witness 2.9 0.77 0.83
Social exclusion witness 2.79 0.79 0.73
Social exclusion non-witness 2.47 0.71 0.75

For example, one item is anchored by the poles very submissive and very
dominant. Only the 8-item M (agency) and 8-item F (communion) scales
were used in the present study; higher scores indicate greater tendencies
toward agency and communion, respectively. The internal consistencies
for this instrument in the present study were .77 for both the M and F
scales.
Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMEE). The 33-item
QMEE assesses emotional empathy, which is defined as responsiveness
to another’s emotional experience (Mehrabian and Epstein, 1972).
Responses to items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with
anchors strongly agree and strongly disagree. Item scores are summed,
with a high score indicating greater empathy. The internal consistency
in the present study was high (alpha = .84).
The Just World Scale. The 20-item Just World Scale is a measure of the
extent to which respondents perceive people as deserving their fates in
a wide range of situations (Rubin and Peplau, 1975). Responses to items
are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with anchors strongly agree
and strongly disagree. Item scores are summed, with higher scores
indicating greater belief in a just world. Considerable construct validity

11
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
has been documented (Lerner, 1980). The coefficient alpha for this scale
in the present study was adequate (.69).

Procedure
Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires in groups. All
measures were presented in paper and pencil format in the following
order: Bullying Attitudes Questionnaire, Emotional Empathy, Just
World Belief and Personal Attributes Questionnaire.

Results
The results are presented in two sections. In the first section, the effects
of contextual within-subjects factors (witnessing the interaction, the
type of bullying) and sex on the dependent measures (endorsement of the
label bullying, perceived seriousness and willingness to intervene) are
examined. In the second section, effects of prospective teachers’ indi-
vidual differences are examined as predictors for endorsement of the
label bullying, perceived seriousness of the interaction and willingness
to intervene.

Contextual factors
In order to examine the effects of sex, witnessing the interaction and the
type of bullying on the labelling of an act as bullying, the perceived
seriousness of the interaction and the likelihood of intervention, a 2 (sex)
× 2 (witness/non-witness) × 3 (aggression type: physical, verbal, social
exclusion) MANOVA was performed. Table 1 presents the means and
standard deviations for the dependent measures. Table 2 presents the
means and standard deviation by witness condition and aggression type.
Interaction effects. There was not a significant 3-way interaction.1
There was, however a significant 2-way interaction, of aggression type
by witness, multivariate F(6, 109) = 6.77, p < .001. Examination of the
individual dependent measures showed the interaction to be significant
for labelling of bullying, F(2, 114) = 6.24, p = .003, perceived serious-
ness, F(2, 114) = 7.29, p = .001 and likelihood of intervention, F(2,
114) = 7.18, p = .001. Post-hoc tests were carried out to investigate the
nature of the interactions. For tests involving the same dependent
measure, the family-wise error rate was set at .05. Six post-hoc tests
were conducted for each dependent measure, thus the post-hoc per
comparison error rate was set at .008.
Whether or not the participant witnessed the event had no effect on
the labelling as bullying for physical aggression, F(1, 115) = .16, p > .05,
or for verbal aggression, F(1, 115) = 6.88, p = .01; it did have an effect for
social exclusion, F(1, 115) = 8.36, p = .005. Witnessing the event in-
creased perceived seriousness for physical, verbal and social exclusion

12
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
Table 2 Mean scale scores and standard deviations for the label
‘bullying’, perceived seriousness and likelihood of intervention
Condition Physical Verbal Social exclusion
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Labelling as bullying
Witness 2.61 .62 2.57 0.75 1.39a 1.14
Non-witness 2.63 0.76 2.36 0.96 1.14 1.09
Perceived seriousness
Witness 10.52a 2.22 8.76a 2.98 5.33a 3.60
Non-witness 7.87 3.26 5.99 3.89 3.54 3.34
Likelihood of intervention
Witness 11.13a 1.88 9.74a 2.73 7.07a 3.54
Non-witness 8.81 3.05 7.45 3.71 5.49 3.40
a
Significant difference in witness versus non-witness condition.

aggression, F(1, 115) = 126.02, 128.71 and 58.67, respectively, all p

<.001. Witnessing the event also increased the likelihood of intervention
for physical, verbal and social exclusion aggression, F(1, 115) = 116.90,
109.43 and 44.12, respectively, all p < .001.
Main effects. There was a significant main effect for type of aggression,
multivariate F(6, 109) = 76.40, p < .001 and witness condition,
multivariate F(3, 112) = 56.95, p < .001. Examination of the dependent
measures indicated that witnessing the event did significantly increase
the likelihood of labelling as bullying, perceived seriousness and likeli-
hood of intervention, F(1, 115) = 6.64, p = .01, and F(1, 115) = 180.53
and 174.33, respectively, both p < .001. The effect of aggression type also
was significant for labelling as bullying, perceived seriousness and
likelihood of intervention, F(2, 114) = 127.05, 219.49 and 137.17, respec-
tively, all p < .001. Post-hoc testing indicated that physical aggression
was more likely than social exclusion to be labelled as bullying, F(1,
115) = 227.76, p < .001. There was no difference in labelling bullying
between physical aggression and verbal aggression. Physical aggression
was more likely than both verbal aggression and social exclusion to be
perceived as serious, F(1, 115) = 80.64 and 405.80, respectively, both
p < .001; and to elicit intervention, F(1, 115) = 56.80 and 257.44, respec-
tively, both p < .001. Verbal aggression also was more likely than social
exclusion to be labelled as bullying, to be perceived as serious and to elicit
intervention, F(1, 115) = 190.08, 316.31 and 197.41, respectively, all
p < .001.

Predicting labelling, seriousness and intervention

A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to predict
labelling of bullying, seriousness of bullying and likelihood of intervention

13
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
for each of the witnessed scenarios; thus, nine exploratory analyses were
carried out. In each of the models sex and age were entered in the first
block and, in the second block, agency, communion and their interaction
term, empathy and belief in a just world were entered.
For the models with the dependent measure of labelling bullying and
likelihood of intervention in the scenarios characterized by physical
aggression, none of the predictors entered were significant; however, in
the model predicting perceived seriousness of witnessed physical ag-
gression, empathy predicted 11 percent of the variance. For the models
with the dependent measures of labelling bullying in the scenarios
characterized by verbal aggression, sex (being female) predicted a small
amount of variance (8 percent) and empathy 16 percent predicted
variance in the second block. For the outcomes of perceived seriousness
and likelihood of intervention, empathy was the only significant predic-
tor, accounting for 16 percent and 9 percent of the variance, respectively.
For two of the dependent measures of social exclusion (perceived serious-
ness and likelihood of intervention), sex (being female) predicted a small
amount of variance (5 percent and 3 percent, respectively), while,
empathy predicted 14 percent and 11 percent of the variance, respec-
tively. Empathy also was the only significant predictor of labelling
witnessed social exclusion, accounting for 7 percent of the variance. As
an example, the full set of regression statistics is provided in Table 3 for
the labelling as bullying of witnessed verbal aggression. It should be
noted that, in each case, a relatively small amount of variance is
accounted for by the individual characteristics and that the error around
the regression coefficients is quite large, suggesting potential for insta-
bility of the solutions.

Discussion
The results of this research suggest that prospective teachers’ attitudes
as well as empathy may be important in determining their definitions of
bullying, their perceptions of the seriousness of bullying, as well as their
likelihood of intervention. Among prospective teachers, attitudes to-
ward bullying are affected by both contextual factors and individual
difference. The contextual factors of type of aggression and the condition
of witnessing were related to prospective teachers’ perceptions of bully-
ing. Interactions involving physical aggression was labelled as bullying
more often, viewed as more serious and considered more worthy of
intervention than verbal aggression. Prospective teachers reported that
acts of verbal aggression and social exclusion that were witnessed would
be more likely to be labelled as bullying and result in intervention.
Contrary to the predictions, biological sex, masculinity, femininity and
belief in a just world were not related to teachers’ attitudes toward

14
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
Table 3 Hierarchical regression analyses of individual
characteristics predicting labelling witnessed verbal aggression as
bullying
Predictor B SE B β Adjusted R2

Block 1
.
Age .00 0 –0.01
Sex 0.17 0.05 .30** .08**
Block 2
Age 0 0.004 0.003
Sex 0.074 0.053 0.134
Femininity (F) 0.022 0.029 0.327
Masculinity (M) 0.014 0.032 0.24
M X F Interaction 0 0.001 –0.362
Empathy 0.006 0.003 .289*
Just World 0.002 0.003 0.046 .16**

*p < .05, **p < .01.

bullying, however, empathy was a significant predictor. These results

highlight the need to conduct interventions that include development of
empathy in teachers, as well as the educating teachers on the diversity
of bullying behaviours, recognizing bullying and on effective methods of
intervention.

Contextual factors
Characteristics of the interaction (such as witnessing or not witnessing
and the type of aggression) were related to prospective’s teachers’
attitudes about the labelling of the interactions as bullying, the per-
ceived seriousness and the perceived likelihood they would intervene.
Physical and verbal aggression may be more likely to elicit the label of
bullying because it is visually and auditory conspicuous and more easily
identified than social exclusion. It is easier to detect the perpetrator as
well as the effect on the victim in physical and verbal bullying compared
to social exclusion. In contrast, teachers are less likely to observe acts of
social exclusion. These behaviours are often brief and covert (Craig and
Pepler, 1997). That social exclusion would be most likely to be tolerated
was not surprising since it is a form of aggression which is easily hidden.
Furthermore, for both physical and verbal aggression, it may be easier
to see the effect on the victim, than social exclusion. Visible effects of the
bullying may be related to teachers’ perspective of how serious the
bullying behaviour is.
While the majority of physical and verbal types of aggression were
judged to constitute bullying, the average respondent labelled less than
half of the social exclusion vignettes as bullying. Notably, social exclu-
sion which is a form of indirect aggression has not been traditionally

15
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
recognized in the definitions of bullying or aggression. Siann and her
colleagues (1993) report that teachers’ formally stated definitions of
bullying include both physical and mental/emotional types of conflict.
In contrast, Boulton (1997) found that teachers were not as likely to
rate leaving someone out as bullying. In the present research, it
appears the mental/emotional component is not as clearly connected to
the label ‘bullying’ as physical violence aspects. Educating teachers
about all types of aggression is an important aspect of intervention
programmes.
The findings also suggest that prospective teachers may not be as
likely to identify and respond to emotional pain and psychological forms
of victimization as they are to physical forms. Regardless of whether
participants considered the vignettes acts of bullying, they consistently
reported greater seriousness for conflicts of a physical nature than any
other type of aggression. Emotional pain sometimes has greater long-
term consequences for children than physical pain (Olweus, 1991). In
fact, children who are repeatedly victimized are more likely to report
internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety (Craig, 1998).
Furthermore, research in social aggression (which includes social
exclusion) and peer rejection clearly indicated that these behaviours
are associated with a range of negative outcomes such as early dropping
out of school, involvement in crime and adult psychopathology (Crick,
1995; Parker and Asher, 1987). Teacher training programmes need to
educate students about the diversity of behaviours that constitute
bullying and the long-term effects of experiencing these behaviours in
order to increase teacher awareness and perceived seriousness of the
problems.
Researchers have found that there are developmental patterns in the
type of aggression (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). Aggression tends to peak
around age 11 years and there is a developmental progression of
aggressive strategies. For the majority of children, physical aggression
has a low base rate with the onset of adolescence, while the base rate of
verbal and social aggression increases in adolescence (Bjorkqvist et al.,
1992). Furthermore, social aggression is more typical of girls, and girls
tend to use this strategy at a younger age than boys. Other research has
found that girls are most likely to use social exclusion as a method of
bullying, yet they are not typically regarded as bullies (Craig and Pepler,
1997). It may be that girls who are aggressive (through social exclusion
means) are currently being overlooked by educators and this may
inadvertently contribute to increased likelihood of girls experiencing
problems subsequently. Interventions need to include teacher education
concerning not only the range of aggressive behaviours, but also the
developmental differences and the sex differences in the types of aggres-
sive behaviours.

16
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
Individual differences
Though contextual factors influenced the prediction teachers’ attitudes
towards bullying, the individual difference factor of empathy also
contributed. It is not surprising to find that teachers who are empathic
towards others will be more likely to identify bullying, perceive it as
serious and report that they would intervene. Empathy is related to both
perspective taking and helping behaviour (Mehrabian and Epstein,
1972). Thus, it is likely that individuals who score high on empathy are
more likely to understand the experience of victimization. The finding of
increased identification of bullying with higher empathy scores is
promising since empathy training is an effective intervention for indi-
viduals who cannot seem to identify with others’ feelings (Kazdin, 1987).
Consequently, if a person’s empathic ability can be improved, a corre-
sponding increase in identification and an understanding of the serious-
ness of bullying may occur, resulting in an increase in intervention
efforts. Thus, teacher training programmes should include a focus on
empathy as a specific skill to develop in prospective teachers. Further-
more, school antiviolence programmes should target the development of
empathy in teachers and educators, as well as bullies and the peer group.
As a consequence of this type of intervention, teachers and students may
be more likely to identify and intervene in bullying interactions.
Lerner (1980) has found that the belief that this is a just world is
positively associated with the belief that victims deserve what is coming
to them. Contrary to the prediction, belief in a just world did not
influence the attitudes of prospective teachers toward bullying. It is
possible that identification with the victim may be a prerequisite before
just world believers can derogate victims. Lerner (1980) suggests that if
people believe life is fair, then an inner psychological need compels them
to protect themselves from the fear that life is not fair and that
unfortunate events are sometimes random. By blaming victims, or by
minimizing their pain, people are, in effect, avoiding cognitive disso-
nance. In the present study, just world beliefs may not have had the
expected effect on attitudes due to lack of identification with the children
in the vignettes. Certainly, the age difference between teachers and
students, as well as the manner in which the vignettes were presented
(written rather than visual enactment), may have impeded such identi-
fication with the students.
A number of limitations related to this research require consideration.
Results associated with masculinity and femininity were contrary to
expectations. It is quite possible that some individuals may have scored
high on both M and F scales, or low on both, thereby eliminating the
effect. Second, attitudes do not always reflect behaviours. The attitudes
measured in the current study have not been compared with teachers’
actual intervention rates. Responses to hypothetical vignettes may be

17
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
different from behavioural responses in a playground. Future research
might attempt to validate the measure of teacher attitudes by correlat-
ing this with objective observations of intervention behaviours. Finally,
this research was conducted in North America and, consequently, the
findings may be represent specific aspects of that culture.

Intervention implications
This research provides direction for intervention efforts in schools.
Schools which aim to decrease bullying at school might consider provid-
ing education training for playground supervisors and teachers on the
identification of bullying conflicts. Kikkawa (1987) found that teachers
often witness what they believe could be bullying but they are not certain
enough to take action against it. Equipped with the knowledge about
what is bullying, the long-term consequences and the diversity of acts
that define bullying, teachers may feel more comfortable in detecting
and intervening. For example, it should be emphasized that social
exclusion is, in fact, bullying if it is repeated over time, involves a power
differential and has a negative effect on the victim. Teacher training to
improve identification of bullying would be an important endeavour,
especially if teachers were instructed to be aware of facial expressions,
body language and other nonverbal cues and not to base their interven-
tion efforts solely on visual cues. Finally, teacher and supervisor training
also should focus on the identification of high-risk interactions (such as
a crowd gathering or rough and tumble play, which are often precursors
to bullying). If adult supervisors simply walk over to these areas, they
may prevent an aggressive interaction from occurring.
In addition to providing increased teacher and adult supervisor
training, it also would be important to conduct an assessment at
individual schools to determine: (1) the extent of bullying problems at the
school; (2) the types of aggressive behaviours that students engage in; (3)
an environmental assessment of where bullying happens (i.e. have
students mark on a school map where they feel unsafe); and (4) teachers’
and students’ perceptions of their ability to intervene. Such an assess-
ment would inform the school community about the problem and
highlight specific issues for the school as well as provide directions for
intervention efforts. For example, knowing where aggression or bullying
happens at school will inform playground supervisors where to look for
potential negative interactions. Understanding teachers’ and students’
perceptions about intervening may provide information about the types
of skills that they need to be taught concerning successful intervention,
as well as highlight the importance of developing an empathy training
programme.
The finding of more intolerance for witnessed acts of bullying com-
pared with non-witnessed acts underscores the need to encourage

18
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
educators to listen to students when they have concerns and to increase
adult supervision in the playground. If teachers view bullying, they are
more likely to intervene than if a child communicates the incident to
them. A key definitional feature of bullying is the power imbalance,
which requires adult intervention to correct this imbalance. Thus, adults
need to listen to students when they report bullying and dispel myths
that students may have concerning their own beliefs about teachers’
ability to be effective in intervening and combatting the problem.
Through a school assessment of the problems of aggression, and also
teacher and student education about the problems, the school commu-
nity can work together to recognize bullying problems and actively
intervene in helping students to feel safe. In addition, Olweus (1991)
explains there is an inverse relationship of supervision and bullying,
such that increased supervision reduces bullying episodes. More super-
vision on the playground may increase the likelihood of witnessing a
bullying interaction and thereby increase intervention rates by teach-
ers.
In summary, this study highlights the importance of educating teach-
ers to identify bullying episodes, the serious consequences associated
with bullying and effective methods of both the prevention and interven-
tion of bullying. Prevention efforts should include identification of high-
risk situations and intervention techniques, as well as promote empathy
among teachers. Bullying is a pervausive problem in schools worldwide
and systematic efforts by schools have been effective in reducing the
prevalence (Olweus, 1993; Pepler et al., 1994; Smith and Sharpe, 1994).
Teachers play a critical role in the success of these interventions and
require both education and training to continue to support their efforts
in reducing bullying at school.

Note
1
Sex was significant as neither an interaction nor as a main effect. Sex was
included in all omnibus multivariate analyses, but was not included as a variable
in subsequent analyses.

References
Askew, S. (1989) ‘Aggressive Behaviour in Boys: To What Extent is it Institution-
alized?’, in D.P. Tattum and D.A. Lane (eds) Bullying in Schools, pp. 59–71.
Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K. and Kaukiainen, A. (1992) ‘The Development of
Direct and Indirect Aggressive Strategies in Males and Females’, in K.
Bjorkvist and P. Niemela (eds) Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female
Aggression. San Diego: Academic.
Borg, M.G. and Falzon, J.M. (1989) ‘Primary School Teachers’ Perception of
Pupils’ Undesirable Behaviours’ (abstract), Educational Studies 15(3): 251–60.

19
 School Psychology International (2000), Vol. 21(1)
Boulton, M.J. (1997) ‘Teachers’ Views on Bullying: Definitions, Attitudes, and
Ability to Cope’, British Journal of Educational Psychology 67: 223–33.
Charach, A., Pepler, D.J. and Ziegler, S. (1995) ‘Bullying at School: A Canadian
Perspective’, Education Canada 35: 12–18.
Cook, E.P. (1985) Psychological Androgyny. New York: Pergamon.
Craig, W. (1998) ‘The Relationship Among Aggression Types, Depression, and
Anxiety in Bullies, Victims, and Bully/Victims’, Personality and Individual
Differences 24: 123–30.
Craig, W. and Pepler, D.J. (1997) ‘Observations of Bullying and Victimization on
the Schoolyard’, Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2: 41–60.
Crick, N.R. (1995) ‘Relational Aggression: The Role of Intent Attributions,
Feelings of Distress, and Provocation Type’, Development and Psychopathol-
ogy 7: 313–22.
El-Sheik, M., Cummings, E.M. and Goetch, V.L. (1989) ‘Coping with Adults’
Angry Behaviour: Behavioural, Physiological and Verbal Responses in
Preschoolers’, Developmental Psychology 25: 490–8.
Farrington, D.P. (1993) ‘Understanding and Preventing Bullying’, in M. Tonry
and N. Morris (eds) Crime and Justice, p. 17. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Genta, M.L., Menesini, E. Fonzi, A., Costabile, A. and Smith, P.K. (1996) ‘Bullies
and Victims in Schools in Central and Southern Italy’, European Journal of
Psychology of Education 11: 97–110.
Heinemann, P. (1969) Apartheid. Liberal Debatt no. 2.
Hoffman, M.L. (1977) ‘Sex Differences in Empathy and Related Behaviours’,
Psychological Bulletin 84: 712–22.
Kazdin, A.E. (1987) ‘Treatment of Antisocial Behaviour in Children: Current
Status and Future Directions’, Psychological Bulletin 102(2): 187–203.
Kikkawa, M. (1987) ‘Teachers’ Opinions and Treatments for Bully/Victim
Problems among Students in Junior and Senior High Schools: Results of a
Fact-finding Survey’, Journal of Human Development 23: 25–30.
Lerner, M.J. (1980) ‘Who Believes in a Just World?’, in The Belief in a Just World:
A Fundamental Delusion, pp. 137–81. New York: Plenum Press.
Mehrabian, A. and Epstein, N. (1972) ‘A Measure of Emotional Empathy’,
Journal of Personality 40: 525–43.
Okabayashi, H. (1996) ‘Intervention for School Bullying: Observing American
Schools’, Psychologia 39: 163–78.
Olweus, D. (1984) ‘Aggressors and their Victims: Bullying at School’, in N. Frude
and H. Gault (eds) Disruptive Behaviours in Schools, pp. 57–76. New York:
Wiley.
Olweus, D. (1991) ‘Bully/Victim Problems among Schoolchildren: Basic Facts
and Effects of a School-Based Intervention Program’, in D.J. Pepler and K.H.
Rubin (eds) The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, pp.
411–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do.
Oxford: Blackwells.
Parker, J.G. & Asher, S.R. (1987) ‘Peer Relations and Later Personal Adjust-
ments: Are Low-accepted Children at Risk?’ Psychological Bulletin 102: 357–
89.
Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Ziegler, S. and Charach, A. (1994) ‘An Evaluation of
an Anti-bullying Intervention in Toronto Schools’, Canadian Journal of
Community Mental Health 13: 95–110.
Perry, D., Kusel, S. and Perry, L. (1988) ‘Victims of Peer Aggression’, Develop-
mental Psychology 24: 807–14.

20
 Craig et al.: Prospective Teachers’ Attitudes
Rigby, K. and Slee, P.T. (1991) ‘Bullying among Australian School Children:
Reported Behaviour and Attitudes toward Victims’, The Journal of Social
Psychology 131: 615–27.
Rubin, Z. and Peplau, L.A. (1975) ‘Who Believes in a Just World?’, Journal of
Social Issues 31: 65–89.
Siann, G., Callaghan, M., Lockhart, R. and Rawson, L. (1993) ‘Bullying: Teach-
er’s Views and School Effects’, Educational Studies 19: 307–21.
Smith, P.K. and Sharp, S. (1994) School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives.
London: Routledge.
Smith, T.W. (1984) ‘The Polls: Gender and Attitudes toward Violence’, Public
Opinion Quarterly 48: 384–96.
Spence, J.T. and Helmreich, R.L. (eds) (1978) Masculinity and Femininity: Their
Psychological Dimensions, Correlates and Antecedents. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R.L. and Stapp, J. (1974) ‘The Personal Attributes
Questionnaire: A Measure of Sex-role Stereotypes and Masculinity-feminin-
ity’, JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology 4: 127.
Stephenson, P. and Smith, D. (1989) ‘Bullying in the Junior School’, in D.P.
Tattum and D.A. Lane (eds) Bullying in Schools. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Ziegler, S. and Rosenstein-Manner, M. (1991) Bullying at School: Toronto
in an International Context. Toronto: Research Services, Toronto Board
of Education.

21