teachers' attitudes toward different types of bullying and victimization in turkey

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 50(10), 2013 C© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21729

TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD DIFFERENT TYPES OF BULLYINGAND VICTIMIZATION IN TURKEY

BAKI DUY

Inonu University

In the present study, attitudes of elementary school teachers toward different types of bullying(verbal, physical, and relational) were investigated. Six written vignettes describing all types ofbullying were given to 405 elementary school teachers (F = 218; M = 187). Results indicatedthat teachers perceived relational bullying, specifically, social exclusion, less serious than verbaland physical bullying. Unlike previous findings, however, the teachers considered verbal bullyingbehaviors more serious than physical bullying behaviors and were also more empathetic towardthe victim physically bullied and the victim verbally bullied than the victim relationally bullied.Coherent with the findings of empathy, they were also more likely to intervene in verbal andphysical bullying behaviors than relational bullying behaviors. Gender of the participant was asignificant factor for all variables. The most rated intervention strategy was having a serious talkwith the bully, regardless of the type of victimization. Multiple regression analysis illustrated thatseriousness and empathy scores both predicted the need for intervention scores significantly inall types of bullying. The findings of this study highlight the importance of increasing teachers’awareness and knowledge about all types of bullying, their consequences, and intervention skillsto lessen bullying behaviors. C© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Bullying is considered one form of aggressive behavior that mainly occurs in school settings.It is so pervasive that even school staff may experience one form of bullying (Maguire, 2001).Bullying-related problems, such as victimization in schools, have become a common concern, notonly for students, but for teachers, parents, and helping professionals in schools, such as schoolcounselors and school psychologists (Leff, Kupersmidt, Patterson, & Power, 1999).

Empirical studies about bullying may seem like a new phenomenon for researchers. Thebeginning studies were performed in Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden in the1970s (Stockdale, Hangaduambo, Duys, Larson, & Sarvela, 2002). Several studies in differentcountries in almost all continents indicated that bullying in schools has been a commonly sharedproblem (Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano, & Slee, 1999), and it seems that no cultureand no country is immune from bullying problem (Stockdale et al., 2002).

DEFINITION OF BULLYING

It seems quite difficult to come up with a definition of bullying that aims to embrace all aspects ofthis complex behavior. Such an attempt is necessarily clumsy and unwieldy (Besag, 2002). Althoughthere is no universally agreed upon definition (Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004), bullying has beenregarded by almost all researchers in bullying literature as a subcategory of aggressive behavior.Olweus (1993), one of the pioneers in bullying research, defines bullying or victimization in a generalway: “A student is being bullied or victimized when she or he is exposed, repeatedly and over time,to negative actions on the part of one or more other students” (p. 9). According to Olweus (2000),three criteria should be present for a behavior to be considered bullying: (1) aggressive behavioror intentional “harm doing” that causes distress at the time of victimization (also in the future,according to Besag, 2002), (2) the actions are performed “repeatedly and over time” (p. 11), and (3)the actions occur in an interpersonal relationship defined by an imbalance of power. These criteriaalso differentiate bullying from other forms of conflict or aggression (Bauman & Hurley, 2005).

Correspondence to: Baki Duy, Department of Counseling and Guidance, Faculty of Education, Inonu University,Kampus 44280 Malatya, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]

987

988 Duy

TYPES OF BULLYING

Bullying behavior often does not come in one form. It may be demonstrated in various forms,such as being regularly kicked or punched, continuous teasing, name calling, being verbally abused,being threatened, having lies and false rumors spread about one, passing on nasty notes, damagingor taking one’s property, or being isolated from groups and activities (Fitzgerald, 1999).

There are some classifications of bullying behavior in the literature. Olweus (1993) made adistinction between “direct bullying” (open attacks on a victim) and “indirect bullying” (e.g., socialisolation) and pointed out the importance of paying attention to indirect bullying due to its invisiblenature. Some researchers identify three types of bullying (Besag, 2002; Fitzgerald, 1999; Orpinas &Horne, 2006) as physical (e.g., beating, punching, pushing, kicking), verbal (e.g., cruel name calling,verbal abuse, threatening, insulting, spreading gossip or rumors), and psychological (e.g., damagingor vandalizing one’s possessions, writing threatening or frightening notes, isolating socially). Yet,documenting a number of studies about bullying, Hawker and Boulton (2000) categorized five types:(a) indirect, (b) relational, (c) physical, (d) verbal, and (e) generic (e.g., making fun of, harassing, ortormenting). Pepler et al. (2006) claimed that sexual bullying behaviors can also be observed amongadolescents as a form of relational bullying.

As revealed by several researchers, physical bullying is the most prevalent form of bullyingthat is either exposed or observed. However, indirect bullying, such as name calling or mean teasing,may victimize a student as frequently as physical bullying (Seals & Young, 2003), and indirectbullying behaviors, such as verbal bullying or social exclusion, may be more harmful and may notdecline with age (Bauman & DelRio, 2006). Whereas boys tend to exert physical types of bullying,girls tend to display verbal types as an indirect form of bullying (Rivers & Smith, 1994). Studiesabout bullying at schools show that students and teachers in Turkey (e.g., Kapcı, 2004; Kartal, 2008;Kartal & Bilgin, 2009; Piskin, 2010; Ucanok, Smith, & Sertkaya-Durusoy, 2011) conceptualize anddiscriminate different types of bullying behaviors in the same way their counterparts do in Westernsocieties.

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING

In terms of the prevalence rates of bullying, different studies in different cultures yieldeddifferent figures. One of the reasons for different rates is the use of different definitions and measuresof bullying in different cultures (Stockdale et al., 2002). The term ijime in Japan or prepotanza inItaly do not exactly correspond to the English term bullying (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefooghe,2002). Researchers and scholars studying bullying in Turkey use the term zorbalık. Even thoughthere is a consensus on what zorbalık really means among researchers and scholars in Turkey, Turkishchildren and adolescents typically do not use the term zorbalık in their daily language to identifytheir bullying experiences.

In a study carried out with a large sample of American adolescents (N = 15,686) in Grades 6through 10, Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Moron, & Scheidt (2001) found that 29.9% ofstudents reported moderate or frequent involvement in bullying behaviors, 13% as a bully, 10.6% assomeone bullied, and 6.3% as both. Although the prevalence rates of bullying incidents in schoolsare not high in the United States, Batsche (2002) claims that “bullying may be the most prevalentform of violence in the schools and the form that is likely to affect the greatest number of students”(p. 17, as cited in Bauman & DelRio, 2006). Solberg and Olweus (2003) reported that 27% of thesubjects (Grades 5 through 9) in a large sample study in Norway had been bullied two or three timesa month, and 16.4% of the subjects were bullied once a week or more. Prevalence figures in Australiaseem no different. Delfabbro et al. (2006) reported that nearly 50% of secondary school students inSouth Australia were exposed to some form of bullying by their peers, and 10% of the participants

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Bullying 989

experienced bullying on a regular basis. Whitney and Smith (1993) carried out a prevalence study inEngland, and found out that 27% of 6,700 primary and secondary school students had been bulliedsometimes or more frequently, and 10% of the subjects had been bullied once a week or more often.Bullying behaviors seem more problematic in Japan. More than 60% of the Japanese subjects in onestudy (Morita, Soeda, Soeda, & Taki, 1999) reported suffering from ijime more than a week

Bullying is also a widespread concern in Turkish schools. Documented prevalence rates ofbullying in Turkish schools are quite similar. Dolek (2002) reported that about 22% of fifth-,seventh-, and ninth-grade students had been bullied often during the semester. In a more recentstudy, Piskin (2010) reported that 35.1% of fourth- through eighth-grade students were identified asvictims, 30.2% were identified as bullies, and 6.2% were identified as bullies/victims.

DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE BULLYING REPORTS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

Accumulating evidence disclosed that there were discrepancies among the answers given bystudents, teachers, and parents in regard to the prevalence of bullying incidents occurring in and outof schools (Bauman & DelRio, 2005). One of the reasons for this discrepancy is the fact that studentscan observe peers in multiple settings, including unstructured settings such as playgrounds, whereasteachers’ observations are limited to only structured locations such as classrooms and hallways (Leffet al., 1999).

Another explanation for the discrepancy lies in the fact that teachers and students conceptualizebullying differently (Naylor, Helen, Cossin, Bettencourt, & Lemme, 2006). This discrepancy ismore obvious for the dimensions of social isolation, gender exclusion, and verbal bullying than forphysical bullying (Menesini, Fonzi, & Smith, 2002). The majority of studies indicate that studentstend to report higher rates of bullying incidents compared with their parents and teachers. Accordingto the findings of a study by Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2007), only 1% of elementaryschool staff reported bullying rates similar to those indicated by the students (33%). Similarly, only5.1% of middle school staff and 8.9% of high school staff were able to accurately perceive studentvictimization rates reported by the students. In one study, however, students perceived fewer bullyingincidents for all types of bullying and in all locations than parents and teachers did (Stockdale et al.,2002). In a similar fashion, a study carried out with a Turkish sample indicated that teachers reportedmore bullying incidents for all types than pupils and parents did (Kartal & Bilgin, 2008).

Moreover, research findings indicate a discrepancy between teachers’ and pupils’ reports ofintervention with regard to bullying (Menesini et al., 2002). This discrepancy raises an importantquestion about how teachers perceive and respond to bullying incidents (Yoon & Kerber, 2003).Craig, Pepler, and Atlas (2000a) reported that most of the bullying behaviors occurred in play-grounds and classrooms; an adult intervened in only 15% of the bullying episodes that occurredin playgrounds, and a teacher intervened in only 18% of the episodes. According to Pepler, Craig,Ziegler, and Charach (1994), whereas 85% of teachers reported that they intervened in almost allbullying incidents, only 35% of the students reported teacher intervention in bullying occurrences.Similarly, Harris, Petrie, and Willoughby (2002) reported that 25% of the students did not believethat administrators did anything to stop bullying, and 21% of them believed that teachers were notinterested in intervening in bullying behaviors. Furthermore, findings suggest that perception ofthe seriousness of a bullying behavior may influence the possibility of teacher intervention (Craig,Henderson, & Murphy, 2000b; Ellis, & Shute, 2007). One possible explanation for the low level ofteacher intervention is the fact that many teachers are not fully aware of bullying phenomena, andthe majority of them perceive only the physical type of bullying as problematic. O’Moore reported(2000) that 25% of primary school teachers and 51% of secondary school teachers did not acknowl-edge bullying as a serious problem. This low level of teacher intervention may give the message to


990 Duy

students that it is okay to harass their peers and there is minimal risk if they bully others (Craig et al.,2000b).

MYTHS ABOUT BULLYING AMONG TEACHERS

Part of the reason teachers do not intervene more often in bullying behaviors or do not perceivebullying as a serious problem may due to some myths that teachers may accept as true (Fitzgerald,1999; O’Moore, 2000). These myths may include: “Being bullied in school does not harm anyone,”“Bullying is just a part of growing up,” “Bullying is part character building,” and “Bullying willmake one a man.” In a similar fashion, Horne, Orpinas, Newman-Carlson, and Bartolomucci (2004)assert that teachers may hold some faulty beliefs about bullying, such as “Bullying is just a normalpart of childhood,” “Children will outgrow bullying,” “Some children are just born rough,” and “It isbest to ignore bullying incidents” (p. 309). Because of such beliefs, teachers may underestimate theseriousness of bullying and its consequences. They may hold beliefs that even result in continuationof the bullying problem (Horne et al., 2004), such as “Only male children bully,” “Bullying is child’splay,” “I can’t change the way children are treated at home,” and “I won’t see bullying because ithappens to and from school and not during the schools day.” These beliefs must be addressed andchallenged if a bully prevention program is expected to be successfully implemented and producefruitful results.

TEACHERS’ ROLE IN THE BULLYING PROBLEM

Teachers, peers, and places where bullying is experienced, such as classrooms, hallways, andplaygrounds, are considered within the social context. Olweus (1993) emphasized the paramountimportance of teachers: “The attitudes of the teachers toward bully/victim problems and theirbehavior in bullying situations are of major significance for the extent of bully/victim problems inthe school or the class” (p. 26).

Almost all bully-prevention programs acknowledge the importance of the involvement of schoolpersonnel (e.g., Horne et al., 2004; Olweus, 1993; Rigby et al., 2004). Among these staff, teachersspecifically have a key role in the prevention of bullying occurrences. Moreover, evidence showsthat the individual responses of teachers to bullying might be a relevant area for investigation ofthe bullying and victimization experiences that occur in schools (Yoon, 2004). Teachers’ attitudesand responses to a bullying incident may discourage or reinforce bullying behaviors. Findingsdemonstrate that rates of bullying incidents tend to decline as teachers intervene in the bullyingbehavior in a direct way (Olweus, 1993). Nevertheless, there is a considerable variability amongteachers in terms of their attitudes and perceptions toward bullying behaviors (Craig et al., 2000b;Yoon & Kerber, 2003).

The majority of bullying studies focus on determining the prevalence of bullying incidents in aspecific culture, identifying the bully and victim or negative consequences of bullying acts, or howto intervene in bullying. There are few studies on how teachers respond to and perceive bullyingbehaviors (Bauman & Hurley, 2005; Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008). In a study with 93 first-yearteachers, Bauman and Hurley (2005) found that 89% of participants considered helping studentswith bullying behaviors as part of their job, nearly 89% were confident in their ability to recognizebullying behaviors, and 77% felt adequate in handling bullying incidents. Nonetheless, 19% of themreported that they had sufficient preparation for the problem of bullying in their training programs.However, providing findings of some studies, Bauman et al. (2008) concluded that teachers werenot very effective in terms of dealing with bullying incidents in general.

Teachers’ responses to bullying incidents show divergence. Although some of them said theywould be direct (e.g., talking to students, making the bully apologize), others said they would beindirect (e.g., referring students to a counselor, calling victim’s parents; Marshall, Varjas, Meyers,



Graybill, & Skoczylas, 2009). Moreover, some teachers would respond to bullying in a constructiveway (e.g., talking to the bully, protecting the victim), whereas others would respond in a punitivemanner (e.g., punishing the bully, sending the bully to the principal; Marshall et al., 2009). Whenteachers encounter a bullying incident, having a serious talk with both the bully and the victim wouldbe the most chosen intervention method (Dake, Price, Telljohann, & Funk, 2003).

Findings of numerous studies revealed that teachers tend to identify physical bullying behaviorsas bullying and perceive them as serious enough to take an action, ignoring other more indirect formsof bullying (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). They also tend to beless sympathetic and less likely to intervene when bullying incidents appear in the form of socialexclusion (Yoon & Kerber, 2003). Prospective teachers seem to be confident about talking and givingsupport to the victim, but when it comes to talking to the bully, their confidence level may decrease(Nicolaides, Toda, & Smith, 2002). The most preferred coping method for the students being bulliedwas “telling a teacher” or “telling parents” about the incident, whereas “crying” or “standing andtaking it” were the least preferred ways.

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN TURKEY

Some changes have recently been made in the educational system in Turkey. In the new system,compulsory education encompasses the first through 12th grades. There are three educational levels:primary school (first to fourth grade), middle (secondary) school (fifth to eighth grade), and highschool (ninth to 12th grade). Each level comprises four grades. Preschool education is not compulsory,but there have been substantial efforts to popularize it nationwide. Even though there are a fewexceptions, students of different grades study in different buildings. Boys and girls attend lessonstogether in the same classroom; yet, some vocational and technical schools only accept boys or girls.

After secondary school, students may choose to attend a vocational and technical school. Inprimary school, students take some core courses, such as reading, writing, math, Turkish, naturalsciences, social sciences, music, and physical education. In middle school, students take Turkish,math, natural sciences, social sciences, a foreign language (mostly English), music, physical educa-tion, and religious courses as their main courses, along with some electives such as drama and visualarts. In high school, students take some main courses, such as math, Turkish literature, chemistry,physics, foreign language (mostly English, French, or German), biology, geometry, geography, andhistory, as well as some electives. Different high schools have different educational focuses. Someschools, such as science high schools, accept students according to nationwide examination results.Students attending a vocational and technical high school take technical, specialized courses, aswell as some general lessons, such as math, chemistry, and history. Every high school graduate whowants to obtain a bachelor’s degree in a specific field must take a nationwide university entranceexamination.

Classroom populations show some variety depending on the location of the school. Traditionally,schools in city centers tend to be more crowded than do those in rural areas. The number of studentsper classroom is about 31 for primary school, 34 for middle school, and 35 for high school, accordingto the 2010–2011 school term (Ministry of National Education [MONE], 2011). These figures arehigher in public schools in city centers. These high numbers may contribute to the bullying problemin a negative way, because it is very hard to manage the classroom climate in such a crowded class.During the 2011–2012 term, 19,905,143 students attended a public or private school in Turkey(Turkish Statistical Institute [TUIK], 2012).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Thus, the main purpose of this study was to investigate elementary school teachers’ attitudestoward different types of bullying and to identify the intervention strategies they generally employ in


992 Duy

different types of bullying incidents. Considering the main purpose of the research, the study soughtto find answers to following questions:

1. Do teachers’ attitudes differ according to the type of bullying?2. Does the level of empathy differ according to the type of victimization?3. Do teachers’ intervention strategies differ according to the type of bullying?4. Do teachers’ attitudes differ according to gender, teaching experience, and bullying experi-

ence?5. How much do the empathy and seriousness variables predict the need for intervention

scores?

METHOD

Participants

The sample consisted of 405 elementary school teachers (F = 218; M = 187) who taughtdifferent subjects to students in first to eighth grades in a midsized city located in the eastern part ofTurkey. The total number of elementary school teachers in the city was about 3,826 at the time of thestudy, according to official statistics (MONE, 2007). This figure means that the sample of the studywas about 11% of the universe at the time. Of the 405 participants, 20% (n = 81) had 1 to 5 years ofexperience, 21.5% (n = 87) had 6 to 10 years of experience, 11.6% (n = 47) had 11 to 15 years ofexperience, 15.6% (n = 63) had 16 to 20 years of experience, and 31.4% (n = 127) had more than21 years of experience in teaching. Moreover, 23.3% of the participants (n = 88) had been neverbullied when they were students in school, 32.7% (n = 125) had been occasionally bullied, 32.2%(n = 123) had been bullied sometimes, 9.4% (n = 36) had been bullied often, and 2.6% of (n =10) reported being bullied very often during school years in the past. Yet, 43.9% of them reportedthat they never victimized anyone during school years, whereas 5.5% of them reported that they hadoften been involved in bullying behaviors during school years in the past.

Measures

To assess teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward bullying, a questionnaire was adapted froma study by Yoon and Kerber (2003). Yoon and Kerber (2003) modified the Bullying Attitude Ques-tionnaire (Craig et al., 2000b) by changing some scenarios to make bullying seem less ambiguousand by using only the scenarios in which bullying incidents were witnessed. In the questionnaire, sixvignettes were presented to the participants, depicting three types of bullying: physical, verbal, andrelational, specifically, social exclusion in a repetitive manner. The vignettes were modified by theauthor to present bully incidents in Turkish schools as much as possible. Following each vignette,three questions were asked of the participants. One question was to determine the seriousness of theincident in the eye of the participant. Following each vignette, participants were asked to rate eachbullying behavior with regard to seriousness, ranging from not at all serious (1) to very serious (5).Cronbach’s alpha for the seriousness scale (n = 6) was .73 for the present study.

The purpose of the second question was to determine the level of empathy that the participantsfelt toward the victim. After presenting each scenario, teachers were asked to indicate how empatheticthey would feel toward the victim presented in the scenarios on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Cronbach’s alpha for the empathy scale (n = 6) was .83, based on theparticipants’ scores in the study. The third question asked teachers to indicate how likely they wouldbe to intervene in the bullying incident depicted in the scenarios by using a 5-point Likert type scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Cronbach’s alpha for the need for intervention scale(n = 6) was .78 for the current study.



A final, closed-ended question asked the participants to indicate what type of interventionthey would employ for each type of bullying behavior portrayed in the vignettes. Ten possibleinterventions depicting six categories of items offered by Yoon and Kerber (2003) were presented tothe teachers, for example, “I would ignore the incident,” “I would try to have them talk about theirproblem and resolve it,” “I would make it clear to the bully that such behaviors cannot be tolerated,”and “I would try to discipline the bully by applying sanctions, punishments, or warnings.” Cronbach’salpha for the intervention items was .89, based on the participants’ scores in the study. Cronbach’salpha coefficients obtained in the present study are higher than those obtained in the Yoon and Kerber(2003) study.

Procedure

To assess teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward different types of bullying, a questionnairewas adapted from Yoon and Kerber (2003). Scenarios depicting different types of bullying (verbal,physical, and social exclusion) were modified to fit real bullying incidents that happen in a typicalschool setting in Turkey. Participants were teachers who were gathered for an in-service training.The questionnaire, which included a personal information section, was distributed to the participantsafter the author explained the aim of the study. Answered questionnaires in paper-and-pencil formatwere returned individually by the teachers who volunteered to participate.

RESULTS

The first and major purpose of the study was to determine whether there were any differencesamong teachers in their attitudes and approaches toward verbal, physical, and relational bullyingincidents. To answer this question, a general linear model was employed to conduct repeatedmeasures of analyses of variance (ANOVA) on the seriousness, empathy, and need for interventionscores for each type of bullying. Means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 1 (n values intables, may vary because of some missing data). Paired-samples t tests were conducted to determinewhich pairs of means in the ANOVAs were significantly different.

Mauchly’s test of sphericity was not significant for seriousness scores, whereas it was significantfor empathy and the need for intervention scores, so degrees of freedom were adjusted with theHuynh-Feldt statistic for empathy and need for intervention scores. The first ANOVA analysisindicated significant differences in seriousness scores for the three types of bullying, F(2, 380) =55.90, p < .001, and yielded a .23 eta-squared value, considered as a large effect (Cohen, 1988).Because Mauchly’s statistic was significant for empathy scores, degrees of freedom were adjustedby the Huynh-Feldt statistic. ANOVA analysis for empathy also yielded significant differences

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations by Bullying Type

Bullying Type

Verbal Physical Relational

Variables M SD M SD M SD

Seriousness 4.38 0.52 4.21 0.64 4.01 0.66Empathy 4.14 0.59 4.15 0.61 4.06 0.64Need for Intervention 4.50 0.50 4.35 0.59 4.15 0.64

Note. N = 382.


994 Duy

Table 2Paired-Samples t Test Results for Three Types of Bullying

Variable Comparison df t p

Seriousness VB-PB 381 5.26 .001***VB-RB 381 10.57 .001***PB-RB 381 6.17 .001***

Empathy VB-PB 381 –.60 .544VB-RB 381 2.47 .014*PB-RB 381 3.54 .001***

Need for Intervention VB-PB 381 4.99 .001***VB-RB 381 11.01 .001***PB-RB 381 7.08 .001***

Note. VB = verbal bullying, PB = physical bullying, RB = relational bullying.*p < .05. ***p < .001.

among the three types of bullying, F(2, 380) = 6.31, p < .01, and an eta-squared value of .03,a small effect. Degrees of freedom were again adjusted by the Huynh-Feldt statistic for the needfor intervention scores due to the fact that the Mauchly’s statistic was significant. There were alsosignificant differences in need for intervention scores among the three types of bullying, F(2, 380) =61.18, p < .001, η2 = .24, a large effect indicating that about 24% of the variance in need forintervention was associated with type of bullying.

Because all ANOVAs indicated significant differences among means for all scores (seriousness,empathy, and need for intervention), paired-samples t tests were used to find out where the differencescame from. All paired-samples t test results are presented in Table 2. Analysis of paired samples t testsfor seriousness scores revealed significant differences among the three bullying types. Comparisonsof means showed that teachers rated verbal bullying (M = 4.38) more serious than both physical(M = 4.12) and relational bullying (M = 4.01). They also perceived physical bullying as moreserious than relational bullying. Paired-samples t tests for empathy scores indicated a significantdifference between verbal bullying and relational bullying, and physical bullying and relationalbullying. Comparisons of means showed that teachers felt more empathy toward physically bullied(M = 4.15) and verbally bullied victims (M = 4.14) than socially excluded victims (M = 4.06). Finalpaired-samples t tests were conducted for need for intervention scores. Results of t tests revealedthat teachers were more likely to intervene in verbal (M = 4.50) and physical bullying (M = 4.35)behaviors than in relational bullying (M = 4.15) behaviors.

One of the questions in the questionnaire asked how participants would intervene in the differenttypes of bullying incidents depicted in the vignettes. Ten possible intervention strategies, representingsix categories of items offered by Yoon and Kerber (2003), were presented to teachers. Frequenciesof these intervention strategies are given in Table 3.

As displayed in Table 3, most of the teachers tended to choose having a serious talk with thebully in almost all types of bullying behaviors. The least chosen strategy was reporting the incidentto school management and expecting them to resolve the problem. Except for 1 participant, allparticipants considered taking a step to handle the bullying behaviors, regardless of the type ofbullying. Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine differences among teachers’ preferencesfor intervention strategies with regard to each bullying incident. However, a major assumption of“minimum expected cell frequency” for the chi-square test was violated in three vignettes: physicalbullying in vignettes 1 and 2, and relational bullying in vignette 2. Moreover, chi-square analysesindicated that there were no significant differences between female and male teachers’ preferences



Table 3Distribution of Frequencies for All Intervention Strategies by Vignette

Bullying Vignettes

1: VB 2: VB 3: PB 4: PB 5: RB 6: RB(n = 346) (n = 344) (n = 346) (n = 348) (n = 350) (n = 350)

Intervention Strategies (85%) (85%) (85%) (86%) (86%) (86%)

1. I would ignore the incident. 0 0 0 0 1 02. I would try to make these students talk and

resolve the problem.32 11 21 12 27 32

3. I would have a class discussion about thenature and consequences of bullying acts andhow to deal with such behaviors.

67 36 54 33 62 59

4. I would have a serious talk with the bully andtell him/her such behaviors cannot be tolerated.

101 82 104 103 114 94

5. I would discipline the bully by applyingsanctions or penalties.

14 27 22 31 17 12

6. I would report the incident to the schoolmanagement and expect them to resolve it.

2 19 4 9 5 4

7. I would call parents of the bully and talk tothem about the incident.

13 36 19 29 23 16

8. I would refer the bully to the guidance service. 36 44 42 46 35 279. I would have a talk with the victim, try to

comfort him/her, and talk about how to dealwith it.

47 39 48 46 38 61

10. I would refer the bully to the guidance service. 33 50 32 39 28 45

Note. VB = verbal bullying, PB = physical bullying, RB = relational bullying.

of intervention strategies with regard to each bullying incident (p = .55, p = .18, p = .75, p = .07,p = .09, p = .13, respectively).

Another purpose of the study was to examine whether the teachers’ attitudes varied significantlyaccording to gender, years of experience and personal bullying experience in the past. Multivariateanalysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to answer this question. In the first place, preliminaryassumption testing was performed for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers,homogeneity of variance–covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, and no serious violations werenoted. A one-way MANOVA to assess the main effect of gender on each variable for different typesof bullying yielded a significant effect on seriousness scores, Wilks’ lambda = .962, F(3, 376) =4.94, p < .002, η2 = .03; empathy scores, Wilks’ lambda = .947, F(3, 376) = 6.98, p < .000,η2 = .05; and need for intervention scores, Wilks’ lambda = .958, F(3, 376) = 5.44, p < .001,η2 = .04. In terms of seriousness scores, there was only a significant difference between male andfemale participants for relational bullying, F = 13.51, p < .000, η2 = .03, indicating that femaleteachers considered relational bullying more serious than male teachers did. Empathy scores forfemale teachers were also significantly different from those of male teachers for all three types ofbullying, F = 4.03, p < .04, η2 = .01 for verbal bullying, F = 5.69, p < .01, η2 = .01 for physicalbullying, and F = 20.52, p < .000, η2 = .05 for relational bullying. These results show that femaleteachers tend to be more empathetic toward the victim than male teachers are, regardless of the typeof bullying incident.


996 Duy

It was the same for need for intervention scores. Female teachers’ scores on need for interventionin the three types of bullying were significantly different from those of male teachers, F = 8.97,p < .003, η2 = .02 for verbal bullying, F = 4.36, p < .03, η2 = .01 for physical bullying, andF = 13.42, p < .000, η2 = .03 for relational bullying. All these findings reveal that female teacherstend to be more sensitive toward bullying incidents than male teachers are. Additionally, MANOVAresults showed that teaching experience and bullying experience (being bullied) in the past had nosignificant effect on seriousness, empathy, and need for intervention scores.

To determine the predictive power of seriousness and empathy scores on need for interventionscores for each type of bullying, multiple regression analyses were conducted. Seriousness scores andempathy scores were entered into the equation simultaneously for each bullying type. The explainedvariance was significant for verbal bullying, R2 = 36, F(2, 379) = 104.90, p < .001. Independentcontribution of seriousness scores (β = .32, p < .001) and empathy scores (β = .36, p < .001) tothe equation was statistically significant at the .05 level. The beta value of empathy scores had alarger effect in prediction of need for intervention scores for verbal bullying. Regression analysis forphysical bullying showed that seriousness and empathy scores together explained 59% of variance inneed for intervention scores significantly, F(2, 379) = 271.14, p < .001. Both seriousness (β = .58,p < .001) and empathy (β = .24, p < .001) were positively associated with the need for interventionvariable for physical bullying. The seriousness variable, however, had a stronger association. Finally,the seriousness and empathy variables together explained 72% of variance in need for interventionscores significantly for relational bullying, F(2, 379) = 479.32, p < .001. Independent contributionof seriousness scores (β = .52, p < .001) and empathy scores (β = .37, p < .001) to the equationwas statistically significant. The beta value of seriousness scores had a larger effect in prediction ofneed for intervention scores for relational bullying.

DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ attitudes and approaches towarddifferent types of bullying (verbal, physical, and relational) in relation to seriousness, empathy, andneed for intervention variables. Results of the present research indicated that teachers perceivedrelational bullying to be less serious than the verbal and physical bullying portrayed in the vignettes.They also perceived verbal bullying to be more serious than physical bullying, which is inconsistentwith existing literature. In accordance with the findings about seriousness, participants reported moreempathy toward the victim characterized in physical and verbal bullying incidents than the victimportrayed in the relational bullying vignette. Identical to the findings of seriousness and empathyvariables, teachers were more likely to intervene in verbal and physical bullying behaviors than inrelational bullying behaviors, possibly because they viewed verbal bullying and physical bullyingbehaviors more detrimental than relational bullying behaviors.

These findings present similarities to and differences from the existing literature. Previousstudies (Bauman & DelRio, 2006; Craig et al., 2000b; Ellis & Shute, 2007; Hazler et al., 2001; Yoon& Kerber, 2003) have shown that teachers/pre-service teachers and even school counselors, whowere supposed to be more aware of adverse consequences bullying (Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007),viewed the relational type of bullying less serious than other forms, specifically, physical bullying.The present study yielded the same result; however, the participants in this study considered verbalbullying more serious than physical bullying and were more likely to intervene in verbal bullyingbehaviors than in relational bullying behaviors. Craig et al. (2000b). Nevertheless, teachers perceivedphysical aggression as more serious than verbal aggression and social exclusion, and it elicited moreintervention need. As documented earlier (Hazler et al., 2001), when physical threat or abuse wasinvolved, teachers and counselors were more likely to identify incidents as bullying, whether or notthe behaviors were bullying or non-bullying. Accordingly, they were more likely to display concern



and attempt to prevent incidents involving potential physical harm than incidents involving potentialsocial/emotional or verbal harm.

Hunter and Boyle (2002) reported that verbal bullying, specifically name-calling, was the mostcommon form of bullying (44% of all reported incidents), followed by social exclusion, one formof relational bullying, with 14% of all reported incidents among fifth- and sixth-grade students.Rivers and Smith (1994) also found that verbal bullying was the most common type of bullyingexperienced by both genders. Boulton (1997) documented that the majority of teachers consideredphysical assaults, verbal threats, and forcing students to do something they did not want to do asbullying. Relational bullying was also linked to some social and psychological adjustment problems(Crick & Nelson, 2002). Furthermore, both students and teachers fail to include features of relationaltypes of bullying, specifically, social exclusion, when asked to define bullying as a term (Nayloret al., 2006), as well as verbal bullying behaviors, such as name calling and spreading rumors (Craiget al., 2000b). These findings underline the importance of increasing teachers’ awareness regardingverbal and relational bullying. Nevertheless, because indirect forms of bullying might take placeout of teachers’ sight and be done in a hidden manner, many teachers fail to detect such bullyingbehaviors (Craig et al., 2000b; Yoon & Kerber, 2003; Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). Additionally,indirect forms of bullying can disconnect victims from their peers. Thus, such a disconnection maydecrease available options to challenge the problem (Hunter & Boyle, 2002). By gaining a clearunderstanding of the social and psychological outcomes associated with the bullies and victimsof social exclusion, teachers may change their attitudes and perceptions about it (Yoon & Kerber,2003), resulting in a greater likelihood of involvement with such bullying behaviors.

Even though responses to different bullying incidents varied, the participants in this study weremore inclined to have a serious talk with the bully, regardless of the type of bullying. Ratings ofintervention strategies also indicated that reporting bullying incidents to a higher authority was thesecond least-preferred strategy. It can be concluded from these findings that the majority of theteachers in this study felt confident in intervening in bullying incidents in a direct way, rather thanaddressing them in a more indirect way. In a study conducted with 359 fourth-year teachers, Dakeet al. (2003) reported a similar finding. They found that a majority of the participants (86%) preferredto have a serious talk with both the bully and victim when a bullying incident occurred. This findingaddresses the importance of handling bullying behaviors in a direct manner, as Olweus (1993) statedthat the rates of bullying incidents tend to decline as teachers intervene in bullying behaviors directly.

The fact that a number of studies yielded similar findings may also imply that the majority ofteachers tend to discipline bullies as a first and fast strategy by employing various methods when theyencounter bullying in and out of the classroom, rather than dealing with the victim. Interventionsfor victims are less common, and thus, most of the victims cope with bullying by trying their best tobe invisible (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005). Similar results were shown in the current study; havinga talk with the victim was the third most chosen strategy. Considering the findings of several studiesindicating that most of the victims do not talk about victimization with their teachers or parents andask for help (Bradshaw et al., 2007), victims have to cope with bullying behaviors by themselves inmost cases, which may increase psychological distress and prolong the problem. These two findings,disciplining the bully first and dealing with the victim later, may be explained by the fact that manyteachers do not know how to handle a bullying incident and have no specific training about bullyingmanagement. As emphasized before (Olweus, 1993; Yoon & Kerber, 2003; Yoon, 2004), teachers’responses to bullying behaviors might affect the future behaviors of both bullies and victims. Ifteachers ignore or fail to handle bullying incidents effectively, it may reinforce bullying behaviors,and thus, victims may suffer more.

It is almost a common finding that bullying behaviors, especially physical bullying are mostlydisplayed by boys than girls. Thus, boys seem to be more prone to bullying behaviors either as


998 Duy

a bully or victim or bully/victim. However, few studies have examined gender differences amongteachers regarding their attitudes about bullying and intervention strategies. Therefore, one of themain objectives of this research was to examine gender differences regarding attitudes towarddifferent types of bullying incidents. Findings of the present study demonstrated that female teachersconsidered relational bullying more serious than male teachers did. Empathy scores for femaleteachers were also significantly higher than those for male teachers for all three types of bullying,indicating that female teachers tend to be more empathetic toward the victim than males are,regardless of the type of bullying. Likewise, female teachers’ scores on the need for interventionfor the three types of bullying were significantly higher than were those for male teachers in allthree types of bullying. These findings are consistent with existing literature (Bauman et al., 2008).Borg and Falzon (1989, as cited in Craig et al., 2000b) stated that the gender of a teacher affectsthe teacher’s attitude about various troublesome acts in the classroom, and female teachers are morelikely to define more behaviors as unacceptable than male teachers are. All these findings reveal thatfemale teachers tend to be more sensitive toward bullying incidents than male teachers are, althoughBoulton (1997) found a small, but significant, difference between male and female teachers’ attitudestoward bullying acts. However, when it comes to intervention strategies, there were no differencesbetween male and female teachers’ preferences. As for teaching experience and bullying experiencein the past, there were no significant differences by gender, which is consistent with existing findings(Bauman et al., 2008).

Findings of the studies about teachers’ responses and attitudes toward bullying behaviorshighlight the importance of teachers’ involvement in bullying incidents. Thus, another purpose ofthe study was to find out what really predicted teachers’ involvement in different types of bullyingincidents. Results indicated that both the seriousness and empathy variables significantly predictedthe need for involvement scores in all types of bullying. Therefore, the empathy variable was astronger predictor in verbal bullying incidents, whereas the seriousness variable was a strongerpredictor in physical and relational bullying incidents, which is consistent with the findings of Craiget al. (2000b) and Yoon, 2004. A significant negative relationship between empathic climate in theclassroom and reported bullying behaviors was also reported previously (Kandemir & Ozbay, 2009).This finding suggests that teacher training programs and anti-bullying programs should also focuson empathy as a skill to develop in not only prospective teachers, but educators and students (Craiget al., 2000b).

Efforts by researchers and practitioners in the field to develop bully-prevention programs andpolicies to lessen bullying-related behaviors in schools in Turkey have been very limited, comparedwith other countries, such as the United States. However, a few attempts have been made to lessenbullying behaviors in Turkey (e.g., Dolek, 2002; Kartal & Bilgin, 2007; Kutlu, 2005; Ugurol, 2010),and the results were conflicting. One of the possible reasons that these programs failed to decreasethe bullying problem significantly may due to the fact that these programs focused only on bulliesor victims, or both, but not teachers or other school personnel. If an anti-bully or bully-preventionprogram is to be effective, it needs to employ both individual and universal strategies (Cook,Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010).

To date, no anti-bully program that employed universal strategies was found in the Turkishliterature. However, the Office of Special Education, Guidance and Counseling Services of theTurkish Ministry of National Education (MONE, 2006) published a strategic plan to prevent andlessen violence in schools, to be implemented nationwide. Yet, the plan does not specifically addressbully prevention. It emphasizes a holistic approach, including both individual and universal strategies.All school personnel (teachers, school counselors, and administrators) have specific responsibilitiesin the plan. In reality, however, almost all non-teaching responsibilities, specifically, student-relatedproblems and psychological services, are placed on the shoulders of school counselors by both



administrators and teachers, as if they are the sole responsible personnel in the school. To date, noreport has been released about the results of this strategic plan to lessen violence in schools. Asidefrom this nationwide plan, almost all of the public schools in Turkey do not have a specific plan orpolicy to alleviate bullying behaviors. In most cases, psychical bullying is treated with disciplinaryactions. It is clear that there is a need to employ an anti-bully program in Turkey that encompassesevidence-based individual and universal strategies.

There are some limitations to the present research. One limitation of the study relates to thesample. The participants comprised elementary school teachers in Malatya, a mid-sized city locatedin the eastern part of Turkey. Thus, one should be careful about generalizing these findings to pre-school and high school teachers, and teachers of another culture. Another limitation is concerned withthe instrument used to collect data regarding participants’ responses and attitudes toward differenttypes of bullying. The nature and seriousness of each type of bullying were given in a hypotheticalmanner through vignettes that were commonly used in similar studies (e.g., Bauman & DelRio,2006; Craig et al., 2000b; Jacobsen & Bauman; Yoon, 2004; Yoon & Kerber, 2003). Due to thefact that there is no definite method that objectively assesses the seriousness of a bullying incident(Bauman & DelRio, 2006), it was assumed that all the incidents depicted in the vignettes displayedcomparable severity. Because participants’ answers are based on hypothetical situations, they maynot represent the actual responses and attitudes of the teachers.

Results of this study once more denoted the paramount importance of furnishing teacherswith knowledge about the consequences of bullying and types of bullying, specifically emphasizingindirect forms of bullying and how to intervene in such incidents both for the bully and the victim,even before beginning to teach. Furthermore, teachers report a need for more training and skill-building workshops to produce effective strategies and responses to bullying incidents (Marshallet al., 2009). It was also reported that teachers who had training about school violence preventionor bullying prevention were more likely to set aside classroom time and felt self-confident aboutintervening (Dake et al., 2003).

All types of bullying can occur in all locations in a school setting; however, students canbe victimized in classrooms and hallways by indirect bullying behaviors. Keeping students in theclassroom or in at lunch and break times will not prevent students from victimization. Indirectbullying can be carried out in the classroom in front of teachers by means of passing on notesand rumors or by excluding the victim from the rest of the group. That is why the identificationof indirect bullying is paramount both for further understanding of bullying phenomena and for itsrecognition by teachers and principals who aim to deal with its occurrence in an effective way (Rivers& Smith, 1994). It should also be noted that having a bully prevention program is not sufficient to beeffective and does not necessarily mean less student victimization (Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty,2007). Positive outcomes of an anti-bullying program result from the manner in which all schoolpersonnel, teachers, administrators, school counselors, and students in a school accept and maintainthe program.

REFERENCES

Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, andrelational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219 – 231.

Bauman, S., & Hurley, C. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about bullying. Journal of School Violence, 4, 49 – 61.Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counselors’ strategies for handling school bullying

incidents. Educational Psychology, 28, 837 – 856.Besag, V. E. (2002). Bullies and victims in schools: A guide to understanding and management. Bristol, PA: Open University

Press.Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes, and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 67, 223 – 233.


1000 Duy

Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differencesbetween students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361 – 382.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and

victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25,65 – 83.

Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000a). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. SchoolPsychology International, 21, 22 – 36.

Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000b). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and victimization.School Psychology International, 21, 5 – 21.

Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d befriends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599 – 607.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2003). Teacher perceptions and practices regarding school bullyingprevention. Journal of School Health, 73, 347 – 355.

Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J., & Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacherbullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and psychosocial profiles. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 76, 71 – 90.

Dolek, N. (2002). Ogrencilerde zorbaca davranısların arastırılması ve bir onleyici program modeli [Investigation of bullyingbehaviors among students and proposal of a bully-prevention model]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MarmaraUniversity, Istanbul, Turkey.

Ellis, A. A., & Shute, R. (2007). Teacher responses to bullying in relation to moral orientation and seriousness of bullying.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 649 – 663.

Fitzgerald, D. (1999). Bullying in our schools. Understanding and tackling the problem: A guide for schools. Dublin, Ireland:Blackhall Publishing.

Harris, S., Petrie, G., & Willoughby, W. (2002). Bullying among 9th graders: An exploratory study. NASSP Bulletin, 86,3 – 14.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial mal-adjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41,441 – 455.

Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school bullying situations. EducationalResearch, 43, 133 – 146.

Horne, A., Orpinas, P., Newman-Carlson, D., & Bartolomucci, C. L. (2004). Elementary school bully buster program:Understanding why children bully, and what to do about it. In D. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in Americanschools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 297 – 325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. E. (2002). Perceptions of control in the victims of school bullying: The importance of earlyintervention. Educational Research, 44, 323 – 336.

Jacobsen, K. E., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses to three types of bullying incidents.Professional School Counseling, 11, 1 – 9.

Kandemir, M., & Ozbay, Y. (2009). Interactional effect of perceived empathic classroom atmosphere and self-esteem onbullying. Elementary Education Online, 8, 322 – 333.

Kapcı, E. G. (2004). Ilkogretim ogrencilerinin zorbalıga maruz kalma turunun ve sıklıgının depresyon, kaygı ve benliksaygısıyla iliskisi [Bullying type and severity among elementary school students and its relationship with depression,anxiety and self esteem]. Ankara Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, 37, 1 – 13.

Kartal, H. (2008). Bullying prevalence among elementary students. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 35, 207 – 217.Kartal, H., & Bilgin, A. (2007). Ilkogretim ogrencilerine yonelik bir zorbalık karsıtı program uygulaması: Okulu zorbalıktan

arındırma program [Implementation of an anti-bullying program for elementary school students: Bully proofing yourschool]. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3, 207 – 227.

Kartal, H., & Bilgin, A. (2008). Bullying in the elementary schools: From the aspects of the students, the teachers and theparents. Elementary Education Online, 7, 485 – 495.

Kartal, H., & Bilgin, A. (2009). Ilkogretim okullarında gorev yapan ogretmenler ve ogrenim goren ogrencilerin zorbalıgayonelik gorusleri [The views of elementary teachers and students about bullying]. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7,539 – 562.

Kutlu, F. (2005). The effect of bullying management training on bullying behaviours of elementary school students. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Leff, S. S., Kupersmidt, F. B., Patterson, C. J., & Power, T. J. (1999). Factors influencing teacher identification of peer bulliesand victims. School Psychology Review, 28, 505 – 517.



Maguire, M. (2001). Bullying and the postgraduate secondary school trainee teacher: An English case study. Journal ofEducation for Teaching, 27, 95 – 109.

Marachi, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2007). Effects of teacher avoidance of school policies on student victimization.School Psychology International, 28, 501 – 518.

Marshall, M. L., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., & Skoczylas, R. B. (2009). Teacher responses to bullying: Self-reportsfrom the front line. Journal of School Violence, 8, 136 – 158.

Menesini, E., Fonzi, A., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Attribution of meanings to term related to bullying: A comparison betweenteacher’s and pupil’s perspectives in Italy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17, 393 – 406.

Ministry of National Education. (2006). Egitim ortamlarında siddetin onlenmesi ve azaltılması strateji ve eylem planı (2006–2011+) [Strategy and action plan for prevention and alleviation of violence in educational settings]. Retrieved fromhttp://orgm.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/siddet_strateji_plani.pdf

Ministry of National Education. (2007). National Education Statistics Formal Education 2006–2007. Retrieved fromhttp://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2006_2007.pdf

Ministry of National Education. (2011). National Education Statistics Formal Education 2010–2011. Retrieved fromhttp://sgb.meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2010_2011.pdf

Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., & Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano,& P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of bullying: A cross-national Perspective (pp. 309 – 323). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Moron, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors amongUS youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285,2094 – 2100.

Naylor, P., Helen, C., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F. (2006). Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 553 – 576.

Nicolaides, S., Toda, Y., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Knowledge and attitudes about school bullying in trainee teachers. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 72, 105 – 118.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Olweus, D. (2000). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Mortita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature

of bullying: A cross-national Perspective (pp. 7 – 27). New York, NY: Routledge.O’Moore, M. (2000). Critical issues for teachers training to counter bullying and victimization in Ireland. Aggressive

Behavior, 26, 99 – 111.Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. M. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence.

Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on

bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376 – 384.Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1994). An evaluation of an anti-bullying intervention in Toronto

schools. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 13, 95 – 110.Piskin, M. (2010). Examination of peer bullying among primary and middle school children in Ankara. Education & Science,

35, 175 – 189.Rigby, K., Smith, P. K., & Pepler, D. (2004). Working to prevent school bullying: key issues. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K.

Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 1 – 12). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behavior and their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359 – 368.Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity,

self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735 – 747.Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used,

and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119 – 1133.Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (1999). The nature of bullying: A cross-national

Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and

intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27, 101 – 110.Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire.

Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239 – 368.Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. (2002). Rural elementary students’, parents’ and

teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 266 – 277.Turkish Statistical Institute. (2012). Number of school/unit, teacher, enrollment and graduate by kind of school and educational

year. Retrieved from http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/VeriBilgi.do?alt_id=14Ucanok, Z., Smith, P., & Sertkaya-Durusoy, D. (2011). Definitions of bullying: Age and sex differences in a Turkish sample.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 75 – 83.


1002 Duy

Ugurol, Y. (2010). Atılganlık becerilerini gelistirme egitimi programının ilkogretim 7. sınıf ogrencilerinin zorbalıga ugramaduzeylerinin azaltılmasına etkisi: Yibo ornegi [Effectiveness of an assertiveness training program on lessening theexperience of bullying incidents among 7th grade students: Yibo case]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. KaradenizTechnical University, Trabzon, Turkey.

Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 37 – 45Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention strategies. Research in Education,

69, 27 – 34.Young, E. L., Boye, A. E., & Nelson, D. A. (2006). Relational aggression: Understanding, identifying, and responding in

schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 297 – 312.Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools.

Educational Research, 35, 3 – 25.


teachers' attitudes toward different types of bullying and victimization in turkey

Documents