Make your own free website on Tripod.com
MSN Hotmail
 Hotmail nadabs@hotmail.com Sign out of Passport sites
 Inbox   Compose   Addresses   Folders   Options   Help 
Folder: Inbox

From: ProQuest <tsupport@bellhowell.infolearning.com> Save Address Block Sender
To: nadabs@hotmail.com Save Address
Subject: <ProQuest> Order<163190130>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:32:30 -0500 (EST)
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close

The following article has been sent by a user at AUBURN UNIVERSITY MONTGOMERY
via ProQuest, a Bell & Howell information service.

Pupil-class determinants of aggressive and victim behaviour in pupils
The British Journal of Educational Psychology
Leicester
Sep 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authors:                  Ton Mooij

Volume:                   68

Part:                     3

Start Page:               373

ISSN:                     00070998

Copyright British Psychological Society Sep 1998

Full Text:

Ton Mooij*

Background. Aggressive behaviour in pupils is expressed in, e.g., bullying,
sexual harassment, and violence. Different kinds of variables could be
relevant in explaining a pupil's aggressive or victim behaviour.

Aims. To develop a multilevel theoretical and empirical explanation for
different kinds of aggressive and victim behaviour displayed by pupils
in a classroom and school environment.

Samples. A national survey was carried out to identify different kinds
of aggressive and victim behaviour displayed by pupils and to assess other
variables related to pupils, classes, and schools. A total of 1998 pupils
from 100 third and fourth year classes attending 71 different secondary
schools took part in the research.

Methods. Data were analysed by a series of secondary multilevel analyses
using the MLA-program.

Results. Being a boy, being more extravert, being more disagreeable, coming
across fewer teachers with positive teaching behaviour, and attending a
lower type of secondary school, help explain why someone is a perpetrator
as such. Being a boy, being more disagreeable, being more emotionally unstable,
being open to new ideas, and seeing more teachers as being strict, function
as explanatory pupil variables for victim behaviour. Other pupil level
variables determine more specific aggressive and victim behaviour aspects.
Various other class level and school level variables are relevant, too.


Conclusions. Personal and environmental pupil variables are more important
than class variables but class variables are in turn more important than
school variables in explaining a pupil's aggressive and victim behaviour.


Research indicates that there are different kinds of aggressive and victim
behaviour and that it is hard to ignore aggressive behaviour in pupils
(American Psychological Association, 1993; Boulton, 1997; Committee of
Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton, 1989; Dumay, 1994; Moreno, 1997; Schmidt,
1993). Self-assessment and sociometric validation of pupils' behaviour
in secondary education, for example, reveals three perpetrator and two
victim behaviour scales (Mooij, 1994):

1. `perpetrator of disruptive behaviour in school' (alpha = .65): misdemeanours
such as verbal abuse of pupils or teachers, disorderly behaviour, bullying;


2. `perpetrator of intentional damage to property' (alpha = .66): combines
theft, vandalism, harassment, blackmailing, use of offensive weapons;

3. `perpetrator of premeditated physical violence' (alpha = .82): deliberate
planning and use of actual physical violence involving the use of weapons
against persons in school or elsewhere. It also includes the initiation
of sexual harassment of girls;

4. `victim of physical violence' (alpha = .70): focuses on physical aggression
by fellow pupils directed against the pupil personally. Such aggression
may be accompanied by the use of offensive weapons;

5. `victim of intentional damage to property or emotional violence' (alpha
= .66): characterised mainly by violence within the school environment,
perpetrated by fellow pupils (and teachers) and directed against objects
or individuals, including the pupil concerned.

These scales suggest that different variables could be of significance
in explaining a pupil's aggressive or victim behaviour. If this is the
case, then theories and research on perpetrator or victim behaviour should
be specified according to the various kinds of aggressive and victim behaviour
as this could strengthen their explanatory and predictive power. The research
question will therefore focus on the theoretical and empirical explanation
for a pupil's aggressive and victim behaviour, including the similarities
and differences between the two. The research was commissioned by the Dutch
Commission for Youth Research. This Commission is made up of representatives
from different Departments, e.g., of Education, Welfare, and Justice.

Multilevel theory

On the pupil level it is first of all possible to distinguish innate or
basic personality traits such as biological, emotional, or social ones
(Frijda, 1994; Goleman, 1995). Research shows that gender is important;
a boy is more likely to bully or is more likely to be violent than a girl
(Farrington, 1993; Haselager, 1997; Olweus, 1991). Aggressive behaviour
will be related to fairly constant traits such as being extravert, being
less agreeable, and being more stable emotionally; victim behaviour will
be related to being introverted. In combination with neurological or hormonal
variables such intraindividual traits are put forward as causes that could
potentially explain a person's life-course-persistent anti-social behaviour
(Moffitt, 1993).

Various environmental characteristics seem relevant, too. These are related
to, for example, a pupil's home or family socialisation processes and their
effects. In addition to the educational and occupational background of
the parents the tendency by the mother to dominate and inflict harsh punishment
on the child tends to contribute towards the development of aggressive
behaviour in the child (Olweus, 1980). Furthermore, educational characteristics
such as social or cognitive features of the curriculum, learning processes,
methods of assessment, and organisational features of the year group system
may de-motivate a pupil whose achievements are relatively 'deviant' from
those of the other pupils. This results in negative selection on the basis
of comparative pupil performance, which means that there will always be
some pupils obtaining fail marks (Collier, 1994; Mooij, 1987).

On the class level variables potentially relevant to the development or
intensity of a pupil's aggressive behaviour may involve variables such
as the percentage of lesson time generally spent on curriculum content,
social group processes, or order or discipline within class. Spending more
time on social group processes may, for example, stimulate positive social
behaviour among pupils. Variables related to teaching aspects such as the
percentage of lesson time spent on whole-class instruction, working in
small groups, or working individually, may be important, too. Spending
more time working in small groups could lead to the development of more
positive relationships between pupils. The form teacher's perception of
the pupils' degree of academic achievement, disruptive behaviour, victim
behaviour, and violent behaviour, seems also relevant here. A form teacher
perceiving relatively high degrees of disruptive or victim behaviour within
a class will concentrate more on reshaping the social behaviour of the
pupils, which could have a diminishing effect on the perpetrator or victim
behaviour of a pupil within the class. Finally, the controlling behaviour
as such may consist of different aspects. Teachers may concentrate on setting
strict behaviour rules, on punishing non-desired behaviour, or on rewarding
positive behaviour and training positive social behaviour skills.

At the school level, variables potentially relevant to a pupil's perpetrator
or victim behaviour are, for example, the type of school (corresponding
to the relatively low or high general educational achievement of the pupils
attending the school), the number of pupils or school size, percentage
of boys, and school procedures for dealing with the responsibilities and
behaviour of pupils (cf. Beirn, Kinsey & McGinn, 1972).

Moreover, same-level or cross-level processes (interactions) may exist.
These involve combinations of variables on the same or on different levels,
which may also have an influence. For example, a pupil whose social
characteristics
or background, cognitive abilities, and linguistic or cultural background,
deviate most from those of the other children in class may run extra risks
given the continuous negative selection processes applied in most school
systems. Such a pupil will get more fail marks, may lose interest in school
at an early stage, and become disruptive or play truant. A pupil functioning
some years above her peer level, on the other hand, may become bored and
start looking for things to do other than the required classroom activities
(Jackson, 1968; Mooij, 1992). Undesirable behaviour by a pupil will generally
meet with a teacher's disapproval. Social tension processes including
anti-social
behaviour may then start to develop between teacher(s) and pupil(s). The
ensuing conflict may, in secondary school, lead to intensified truancy,
violent behaviour and the pupil's dropping out, with criminal behaviour
just one step away (Bayh, 1975).

Method

Design and sample

A national survey was carried out to identify different kinds of pupil
aggressive and victim behaviour and to assess the relationship between
this type of behaviour and other pupil, class, and school characteristics
or variables (Mooij, 1994). First, a random sample of Dutch secondary schools
was sent a questionnaire in November 1992. The aim of this was to collect
data on school level variables. The results were used to randomly select
one third and one fourth year class at each participating school. Second,
in January 1993, the form teachers of those classes were asked to complete
a questionnaire with variables on the class level and pupil level. Third,
the pupils in these classes participated. In March and April 1993, 1998
pupils from 100 classes at 71 different schools took part in the research.
The pupils completed two questionnaires; the items referred to the period
September 1992 - March 1993. This three-stage design ensured, among other
things, that school variables were measured before class variables and
that class variables were measured before pupil variables. This could facilitate
a time-based or causal interpretation of the findings.

Operationalisation

Some of the pupil variables were related to perpetrator and victim variables.
Principal components analysis followed by varimax rotation and alpha scale
construction resulted in three perpetrator scales and two victim scales
(see before). The scores on these reliable and homogeneous scales form
the dependent pupil variables.

Independent variables on the pupil level included gender, religious affiliation,
ethnic or minority group, non-verbal intelligence (sub-test 3 of Horn,
1969), and the `big five' personality dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability, intellectuality or openness to
new ideas). The personality dimensions were reliably measured using a pilot-test
developed by C. van Lieshout (University of Nijmegen): see Mooij, 1994.
Relevant home variables were related to the parents, such as for example,
whether or not the parents were living together, the educational level
of the mother and the father, and the occupational level of both parents.
Then items on school achievement, school behaviour, and school motivation
were focused on. Each pupil also provided information on the teachers'
teaching behaviour. The data on how they saw teachers' teaching behaviour
were included as proportions.

The class level data were generated by the form teachers and consisted
either of percentages of time or of dichotomies. The form teacher's assessments
of each pupil's academic achievements, disruptive, violent, or victim behaviour
were changed into proportions characterising the class.

The school level data were given by school leaders and school administrators.
The variables were either dichotomies or numbers of times a certain event
had taken place within a certain period of time.

Different analyses led to the conclusion that the data were reliable, valid,
and representative for the third and fourth year of the various types of
secondary school in the Netherlands (Mooij, 1994). The results from a secondary
multilevel analysis of the data are presented.

Multilevel analysis

Multilevel analysis is used to explain the variation of a dependent variable
by a hierarchically structured set of independent variables on different
levels of analysis (Goldstein, 1995). Because of the research design no
more than two classes participated per school. For this reason it was decided
to carry out two series of two-level analyses: one with respect to the
pupil and class level, and one with respect to the pupil and school level.
At first a `zero model' with only random variances on the pupil level and
higher level was estimated. Next a `pupil level model' with statistically
significant pupil variables was concentrated on. Subsequently, the higher
level variables were introduced in a `two-level model', one by one, in
order to estimate their relevance. Finally, this two-level model was expanded
using cross-level interactions between the significant higher level variables
and each of the significant pupil level variables. Significant interactions
were retained in this final estimation. In this situation the two `source
variables' used to build the interaction (by means of multiplication) were
to be left in the analysis, independent of their significance on the pupil
or higher level.

Data manipulation was done using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. (SPSS). The multilevel analyses were carried out using the program
MLA (Busing, Meijer & Van der Leeden, 1994).

Results

Selection of independent pupil variables

All in all, 22 pupil variables have potential relevance as an explanatory
variable. These were divided into four groups:

gender, type of school attended, having had to repeat a year in primary
education, and having had to repeat a year in secondary education;

intelligence and the `big five' personality scales;

family variables; religious affiliation, ethnic or minority group, parents
divorced, educational and occupational level of both the father and the
mother;

teacher's teaching variables and frequency of extra-curricular activities
at school.

For each of the five dependent scale scores a specific data set was developed
for each of these four groups of independent pupil variables. This was
done in order to cut back the elimination of pupils as a result of missing
values. The procedure resulted in 20 data sets for pupil-class level analyses
and 20 data sets for pupil-school level analyses. Within each data set
a pupil level model with fixed pupil variables and random variances on
the pupil level and higher level was analysed. A pupil variable was selected
if it was significant with respect to at least two dependent variables
in at least one of the 40 data sets. This resulted in 11 out of the 22
pupil variables being selected. The selected variables are:

genderbg: boy = 0, girl = 1;

pexintro: personality scale score extravert (low = 1) - introvert (high
= 5);

pagrunag: personality scale score agreeable (low = 1) - disagreeable (high
= 5);

pconunco: personality scale score conscientious (low = 1) - unconscientious
(high = 5);

pemstaun: personality scale score emotionally stable (low = 1) - unstable
(high = 5);

popidnot: personality scale score open to new ideas (low = 1) - not open
(high = 5);

teachpos: pupil's perceived proportion of teachers with positivteaching
behaviour;

teachsev: pupil's perceived proportion of strict teachers;

teachdis: pupil's perceived proportion of teachers with discipline problems;


eductype: type of secondary school attended by the pupil (lowest = 1, highest
= 6);

heldbsec: pupil having had to repeat a year in secondary education (no
= 0, yes = 1).

Variables concerning the parents or home situation do not appear in these
selection results.

Two-level analyses

The 11 pupil variables and the class variables were used to make up a new
data set (1280 pupils, 87 classes). For each dependent scale variable a
`zero model' without pupil and class independent or explanatory variables
was analysed first. Then the explanatory pupil level variables were introduced,
followed by the higher level variables and, finally, interactions between
pupil variables and significant higher level variables. The `intra-unit
correlation-coefficient' (IUC) is used to indicate the effect of the
introduction
of variables because it reflects.the proportion of the variance explained
by the unit or higher level. As more variables enter the analysis, the
IUC should become lower. The upper half of Table 1 contains the IUC for
the pupil-class analyses.

Table 1 shows that the explanation for someone being a perpetrator of
premeditated
physical violence is the relatively best one (11.1-2.2 = 8.9 per cent of
the between-class variance). Next come the explanations for someone being
a victim of physical violence (6.7 percent) and being a perpetrator of
disruptive behaviour in school (5.3 percent).

The pupil and school level data (1302 pupils, 53 schools) were analysed
in the same way. All in all, 20 school variables were tried. Two school
variables contribute significantly towards explaining the dependent variables.
These are: the school does not participate in pupil exchange programmes
with other schools (explaining disruptive behaviour in school), and attending
a school with a relatively large number of girls (explaining why someone
becomes a victim of physical violence).

[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: Table 1.

The pupil-school results in the lower half of Table 1 show a pattern comparable
to that of the pupil-class results, but the pupil-school results generally
have a lower explanatory value than the pupil-class results. With respect
to explaining a pupil's aggressive and victim behaviour, differences between
schools are less relevant than differences between classes. For this reason
more specific attention was paid to the pupil-class results.

Pupil-class results on aggressive behaviour

Pupil-class results with respect to the analysis relating to someone being
a perpetrator of disruptive behaviour in school are given in the first
numerical column in Table 2.

All pupil level variables, except the personality variable `open to new
ideas', are relevant. Being a boy, seeing oneself as being relatively extravert,
disagreeable, unconscientious, and emotionally unstable, and coming across
fewer teachers with positive teaching behaviour, more teachers with strict
teaching behaviour, more teachers with discipline problems, attending a
lower type of secondary school, and having had to repeat a year in secondary
education, make a significant contribution towards explaining disruptive
behaviour in school. One class variable improves this pupil model. A higher
mean score of the form teacher's assessment of each pupil in class being
a victim of bullying or violence inflicted by other pupils ('clmtvict')
also contributes to this explanation. This class variable also shows an
interaction with the pupil's perceived proportion of strict teachers
('teachsev').
The meaning of this interaction was clarified by taking different values
of the class variable (values respectively 0, .3, .6, .9). For each of
these values different possible values of the pupil variable 'teachsev'
(0, .3, .6, .9) were used in the corresponding multilevel equation. The
interpretation is that in classes where, according to the form teacher,
relatively few pupils are the victim of bullying or violence inflicted
by other pupils, the pupil's perception of a higher proportion of stricter
teachers raises his score on disruptive behaviour in school; within a class
where, according to the form teacher, a relatively larger number of pupils
are the victim of bullying or violence inflicted by other pupils, the pupil's
perception of a higher proportion of stricter teachers lowers his score
on disruptive behaviour in school.

[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: Table 2.

The random variances with respect to the pupil level (Var Eij: .066) and
the class level (Var Uj: .003) are still significantly different from zero.
This means that other variables could explain more of this variance. The
intra-unit correlation-coefficient (IUC: .048, or 4.8 per cent) indicates
the proportion of the variance explained by the unit or class level. The
log-likelihood statistic describing the distribution (Busing et al., 1994)
is relevant in the interpretation of successive analysis models.

The results of comparable analyses to find an explanation for someone becoming
a perpetrator of intentional damage to property are given in the second
numerical column of Table 2. There is no random variance left on the class
level, which means that no class variables are relevant here. Being a
perpetrator
of intentional damage to property is thus explained by being a boy, seeing
oneself as being more extravert and less agreeable, coming across fewer
teachers with positive teaching behaviour, and attending a lower type of
secondary school.

The results with regard to the explanation for someone being a perpetrator
of premeditated physical violence appear in the third numerical column
of Table 2. A pupil will score higher on being a perpetrator of premeditated
physical violence if the pupil:

is a boy;

sees himself as being relatively:

extravert, and unconscientious;

and perceives his teachers as:

being stricter, and more perturbed by disruptive pupils;

while the pupil:

attends a lower type of secondary school; is in a class where, during lessons,
a lot of whole-class instruction is given; and in a class where, according
to the form teacher, one uses more severe forms of punishment to deal with
pupils' aggressive behaviour;

and, more specifically,

is in a class where, according to the form teacher, relatively few pupils
disrupt the lessons, the pupil's assessment of his own lack of agreeableness
has a less positive effect on premeditated physical violence; in a class
where, according to the form teacher, a relatively larger number of pupils
disrupt lessons, the pupil's assessment of his own lack of agreeableness
has a stronger positive effect on premeditated physical violence (that
is: increases the score on physical violence);

in a class where, according to the form teacher, relatively few pupils
disrupt the lessons, the pupil's perception of teachers with positive teaching
behaviour has a slightly negative effect on premeditated physical violence;
in a class where, according to the form teacher, a relatively larger number
of pupils disrupt lessons, the pupil's perception of teachers with positive
teaching behaviour has a negative effect on premeditated physical violence
(that is: lowers the score on premeditated violent behaviour).

Pupil-class results on victim behaviour

The first numerical column of Table 3 shows the results with respect to
someone being a victim of physical violence. Relevant class variables are:
the percentage of time teachers spend on group processes and social behaviour
during the lessons ('clgrsole'), and the proportion of pupils who, according
to the form teacher, are the victim of bullying or violence inflicted by
other pupils ('clmtvict').

So a pupil scores higher when it comes to being a victim of physical violence
if the pupil:

is a boy;

sees himself as being relatively:

disagreeable, emotionally unstable, and open to new ideas;

and perceives his teachers as:

being stricter;

and the pupil has not had to repeat a year in secondary education; and,
more specifically:

is in a class where, according to the form teacher, teachers spend less
time on group processes and social behaviour during the lessons, a girl
has a lower score on the scale victim of physical violence ; in a class
where, according to the form teacher, teachers spend more time on group
processes and social behaviour during the lessons, a girl has a higher
score on this scale;

in a class where, according to the form teacher, a relatively smaller number
of pupils are the victim of bullying or violence inflicted by other pupils,
a pupil attending a higher school type has a lower score on the scale `victim
of physical violence'; in a class where, according to the form teacher,
a relatively larger number of pupils are the victim of bullying or violence
inflicted by other pupils, the pupil attending a higher school type has
a significantly lower score on this scale;

in a class where, according to the form teacher, relatively few pupils
are the victim of bullying or violence inflicted by other pupils, the pupil's
assessment of his own emotional instability has a slightly positive effect
on the scale `victim of physical violence ; in a class where, according
to the form teacher, a relatively larger number of pupils are the victim
of bullying or violence inflicted by other pupils, the pupil's assessment
of own emotional instability has a stronger positive effect on this scale.


The second numerical column of Table 3 shows the results of the explanation
for a pupil's score in relation to being a victim of intentional damage
to property or emotional violence. The class level variable found to be
relevant is the percentage of lesson time spent on keeping order and discipline
('clperdis'). A pupil scores higher on being a victim of intentional damage
to property or emotional violence if the pupil:

is a boy;

sees himself as being relatively:

extravert, disagreeable, unconscientious, emotionally unstable, and open
to new ideas;

and perceives his teachers as:

[IMAGE TABLE] Captioned as: Table 3.

being stricter, and more perturbed by disruptive pupils;

and, more specifically:

is in a class where, according to the form teacher, teachers spend less
time on keeping order and discipline during the lessons, a girl has a lower
score on the scale `victim of intentional damage to property or emotional
violence'; in a class where, according to the form teacher, teachers spend
more time on keeping order and discipline during the lessons, a girl has
a significantly higher score on this scale.

Discussion

Attention has been paid to multilevel theoretical and empirical aspects
of the explanation of different kinds of aggressive and victim behaviour
in pupils. Table 1 shows that the pupil-class explanation generally has
a higher explanatory value than the pupil-- school explanation. The explanation
for being a perpetrator of premeditated physical violence is the relatively
best one, followed by the explanations for being a victim of physical violence
and being a perpetrator of disruptive behaviour in school. The explanations
for being a perpetrator of intentional damage to property or being a victim
of intentional damage to property or emotional violence take up the last
place.

More specifically, Table 2 demonstrates that being a boy, being more extravert,
being more disagreeable, coming across fewer teachers with positive teaching
behaviour, and attending a lower type of secondary school, help explain
why someone is a perpetrator as such. The fact that someone is a perpetrator
of disruptive behaviour in school and of premeditated physical violence
is furthermore explained by being more unconscientious, seeing more teachers
as being strict, and coming across more teachers with discipline problems.
Only with respect to these last two scales the analyses also reveal that
'environmental' class variables and their interactions with pupil level
variables are important. The relevant class variables are: form teacher's
mean of the assessment of pupils who are the victim of bullying and violence;
being in a class where, during lessons, more whole-class instruction is
given; and being in a class where, according to the form teacher, one uses
more severe punishment to deal with pupils' aggressive behaviour.

Table 3 illustrates that being a boy, being more disagreeable, being more
emotionally unstable, being open to new ideas, and seeing more teachers
as being strict, function as explanatory pupil variables for both victim
scales. Some interactions between pupil variables and class variables are
important, too. These class variables are: the percentage of time teachers
spend on group processes and social behaviour during the lessons; the proportion
of pupils who, according to the form teacher, are the victim of bullying
or violence inflicted by other pupils; and the percentage of lesson time
spent on keeping order and discipline.

There are a lot of similarities between the explanations of being a perpetrator
and being a victim, but some differences are worthy of note. Being a perpetrator
is not related to being open to new ideas and is influenced by coming across
fewer teachers with positive teaching behaviour, while being a victim means
being open to new ideas and is not related to teachers' manifestation of
positive or negative teaching behaviour. Having had to repeat a year during
secondary education positively influences being a perpetrator of disruptive
behaviour in school, but not having had to repeat a year in secondary education
contributes towards being a victim of physical violence. The class variables
indicate aspects of social processes between pupils and teacher(s) or
characteristics
of social didactic procedures within classes that seem to emphasise that
concepts such as `social climate' or `school climate' represent more or
less independent characteristics within a school (Glasser, 1969; National
Education Association, 1994). In relation to being a perpetrator, and not
in relation to being a victim, there seems to be a tension between the
teaching behaviour of the teachers and the perpetrating behaviour of pupils.
This seems to reveal a `negative harmony' between pupils and teachers which
is only present in the case of offending pupils.

A noteworthy result is the empirical irrelevance of the home and parent
related variables. Family variables are generally assumed to have an effect
on the development of anti-social or aggressive behaviour (Junger-Tas,
1996). However, the present results in secondary education do not deny
the fact that, at a younger age, a child's (anti-)social development is
partly influenced, or even mainly influenced, by home and family variables.


One has to be careful when drawing conclusions, as this is a first example
of a multilevel explanation for aggressive and victim behaviour in pupils.
It does however seem possible to conclude, first, that personal or
intra-individual
pupil variables play a more important role than class variables, but that
class variables in turn play a more important role than school variables
in explaining a pupil's aggressive and victim behaviour. Second, there
are some interpretable differences between the explanation for perpetrating
behaviour and for victim behaviour displayed by a pupil. Third, in addition
to the main effects of variables of different levels, cross-level interactions
are also relevant in these explanations. Fourth, it is far more difficult
to find an explanation for damage to property using the present independent
variables than to find an explanation for disruptive behaviour or for aggressive
or victim physical behaviour.

References

Alschuler, A. S. (1980). School Discipline: A Socially Literate Solution.
New York: McGrawHill.

American Psychological Association (1993). Violence and Youth: Psychology's
Response. Washington, DC: Author.

Bayh, B. (1975). Our Nation's Schools - a Report Card: 'A' in School Violence
and Vandalism. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

Beirn, R. Kinsey, D. C. & McGinn, N. F. (1972). Antecedents and consequences
of early school leaving. Educational Documentation and Information, 46(182),
1-116. Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers' views on bullying: definitions,
attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
67, 223-333.

Busing, F. M. T. A., Meijer, E. & Leeden, R. van der (1994). MLA. Software
for Multilevel Analysis of Data with Two Levels. User's Guide for Version
1. Ob. Leiden: University of Leiden, Department of Psychology.

Collier, G. (1994). Social Origins of Mental Ability. New York: Wiley.
Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton (1989). Discipline in Schools.
London: Her

Majesty's Stationery Office, Department of Education and Science and the
Welsh Office. Dumay, J. -M. (1994). L',cole Agressee, Reponses a la Violence.
Paris: Belfond. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing
bullying. Crime and Justice. A Review of

Research, 17, 381458.

Frijda, N. H. (1994). Emotionele achtergronden van geweld. (Emotional
backgrounds
of violence.) Justitiele Verkenningen, 20(1), 8-28. Glasser, W. (1969).
Schools without Failure. New York: Harper & Row. Goldstein, H. (1995).
Multilevel Statistical Models. London: Arnold. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional
Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Haselager, G. J. T. (1997). Classmates.
Nijmegen: Mediagroep KUN/AZN. Horn, W. (1969). Prifsystem fur Schul- und
Bildungsberatung P-S-B. Handanweisung fur die Durchfuhrung, Auswertung
und Interpretation. (School and occupation test P-S-B. Guide to take, score
and interpret the test.) Gottingen: Verlag fir Psychologie. Jackson, P.
W. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Junger-Tas,
J. (1996). Jeugd en Gezin. Preventie Vanuit een Justitieel Perspectief.
(Youth and Family. Prevention from a Justicial Perspective.) 's-Gravenhage:
Ministerie van Justitie, directie beleid.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial
behavior: a

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701. Mooij, T. (1987).
Interactional Multi-level Investigation into Pupil Behaviour, Achievement,
Competence, and Orientation in Educational Situations. 's-Gravenhage: Foundation
for Educational Research.

Mooij, T. (1992). Predicting (under)achievement of gifted children. European
Journal for High Ability, 3, 59-74.

Mooij, T. (1994). Leerlinggeweld in het Voortgezet Onderwijs. (Pupil Violence
in Secondary Education.) Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, Instituut voor
Toegepaste Sociale wetenschappen.

Mooij, T. & Vierke, H. (1997). Leerlinggeweld in Multiniveau-perspectief.
(Pupil Violence from a Multilevel Perspective.) Nijmegen: Katholieke
Universiteit,
Instituut voor Toegepaste Sociale wetenschappen.

Moreno, J. M. (1997). The Dark Side of the School: Policy and Research
on Antisocial Behaviour in Spanish Schools. Contribution from Spain to
the EU expert conference held in Utrecht, The Netherlands, February 24-26th
1997. Madrid: Faculty of Education, UNED. National Education Association
(1994). School Violence. Washington, DC: author. Olweus, D. (1980). Familial
and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys:
a causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-660. Olweus, D. (1991).
Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic facts and effects of
a school based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds),
The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, (pp. 411-448). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Was tun gegen Gewalt unter Kindern und Jugendlichen
. . . ? (What to do against Violence of Children and Youth . . . ?) Dusseldorf:
Kultusministerium.

(Manuscript received 25 June 1997; final version 16 October 1997)

* Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Ton
Mooij, University of Nijmegen, Institute for Applied Social Sciences,
Toernooiveld
5, 6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: t.mooij@its.kun.nl

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.


=============================== End of Document ================================



Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close

 Inbox   Compose   Addresses   Folders   Options   Help 


Get notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are on-line. Send instant messages. Click here to get your FREE download of MSN Messenger Service! To meet new friends at the new MSN Chat, click here.
© 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Service   Privacy Statement