Indirect versus Verbal Forms of Victimization at School: The Contribution of Student, Family, and School Variables.
Indirect versus Verbal Forms of Victimization at School: The Contribution of Student, Family, and School Variables.
复制标题
学校受害的间接形式与口头形式：学生、家庭和学校变量的贡献。
DOI：
10.1093/swr/32.3.159
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Mona Khoury
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shalhevet Attar;Mona Khoury
本研究探讨了间接和口头受害的同龄人在学校的相关因素。该研究基于以色列324所学校7至11年级的16，604名学生的全国代表性样本。在课堂上完成了自我管理的匿名问卷。分层线性模型被用来研究学生的受害和学生和学校层面的变量之间的关系。本研究表明了区分言语受害和间接受害的重要性。例如，调查结果表明，男孩比女孩报告更多的口头和较少的间接受害。来自社会经济地位低的家庭比例较高的学校的学生更多地间接受害，但较少口头受害。然而，研究也揭示了两种受害形式的关系模式和某些相关因素之间的一些相似之处。理解这两种受害类型之间的差异的影响突出。关键词：性别;间接受害;学校生态;社会经济地位;言语伤害 ********* 校园暴力一直是学生、家长、学校教职员和公众的主要关注问题。过去关于校园暴力的实证研究有相当一部分集中在直接的、公开的行为模式上，如身体暴力（例如，打、踢）或言语暴力（例如，咒骂、骂人）（例如，Grunbaum等人，2002;Lowry，Sleet，邓肯，Powell，& Kolbe，1995; Olweus，1993 a）.对学校中同龄人直接攻击和受害的普遍性的研究表明，无论是作为欺凌者还是作为受害者，男孩比礼物更容易参与这种行为（Grunbaum等人，2002; Olweus，1993 b; Ostrov & Keating，2004），这一发现导致了对男性攻击形式的关注（Crick，1997）。然而，过去几年的研究表明，除了直接（身体和语言）暴力之外，还必须调查间接形式的暴力（包括关系和社会形式），据发现，女孩比男孩更具有这种特点（例如，Bjorkqvist、Lagerspetz和Kaukiainen，1992年; Crick，1997年; Osterman等人，1998; Ostrov & Keating，2004; Owens，Daly，& Slee，2005; Tapper & Boulton，2005）.尽管关系型、间接型和社会型的攻击行为之间存在细微的差异，（参见Coyne，Archer和Eslea，2006），它们都与通过破坏他人的社会关系或同伴接受感而故意伤害他人的行为有关（Crick，Casas，& Mosher，1997; Crick & Grotpeter，1995; Ostrov & Keating，2004）;例如，将个人排除在团体活动之外，散布谣言，或恶意地谈论他们。Coyne et al.（2006）比较了身体，语言和这些间接形式的攻击。他们发现，当将身体和言语攻击行为与上述各种形式的间接行为进行比较时，很明显，后者彼此足够相似（并且与前者不同），足以保证将其纳入一个单一的类别。所有这三种形式的攻击都含有操纵性的成分，而且往往是隐蔽的攻击。在本研究中，我们遵循Coyne et al.（2006）的建议，通过创建一个更大的结构，即间接受害，包括这些形式的攻击行为，以减少间接，关系和社会攻击研究人员之间的混淆和争论。在身体伤害中，身体伤害是伤害的工具;在言语伤害中，心理虐待是伤害的工具。相比之下，在间接受害中，关系是伤害的载体（Crick，1997年）。…
The present study examines the correlates of indirect and verbal victimization by peers at school. The research is based on a nationally representative sample of 16,604 students in grades 7 through 11 in 324 schools across Israel. Self-administrated anonymous questionnaires were completed during class. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine the relationships between students' victimization and student- and school-level variables. The study gives an indication of the importance of making distinctions between verbal victimization and indirect forms of victimization. For example, the findings indicate that boys reported more verbal and less indirect victimization than did girls. Students from schools with higher proportions of families of low socioeconomic status were more indirectly victimized but were less verbally victimized. However, the research also reveals some similarities between the patterns of relationships of the two victimization forms and certain correlates. Implications of understanding the differences between these two victimization types are highlighted. KEY WORDS: gender; indirect victimization; school ecology; socioeconomic status; verbal victimization ********** School violence has been a major concern for students, parents, school staff, and the general public. A considerable part of past empirical studies on school violence has focused on direct, overt behavior patterns, such as physical violence (for example, hitting, kicking) or verbal violence (for example, cursing, calling names) (for example, Grunbaum et al., 2002;Lowry, Sleet, Duncan, Powell, & Kolbe, 1995; Olweus, 1993a). Research on the prevalence of direct aggression and victimization by peers at school has demonstrated that boys are significantly more involved in such behaviors than are gifts, either as bullies or as victims (Grunbaum et al., 2002; Olweus, 1993b; Ostrov & Keating, 2004), a finding that has led to a focus on male forms of aggression (Crick, 1997). However, in the past several years studies have demonstrated the importance of the investigation of indirect forms of violence (including relational and social forms) in addition to direct (physical and verbal) violence, which was found to be more characteristic of girls than of boys (for example, Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick, 1997; Osterman et al., 1998; Ostrov & Keating, 2004; Owens, Daly, & Slee, 2005; Tapper & Boulton, 2005). Despite the slight differences between relational, indirect, and social forms of aggression (see Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006), they all relate to behaviors by which intentional harm is caused to others by damaging their social relationships or feelings of peer acceptance (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Ostrov & Keating, 2004); for example, excluding individuals from group activities, spreading rumors, or maliciously gossiping about them. Coyne et al. (2006) compared physical, verbal, and these indirect forms of aggression. They found that when comparing physical and verbal aggressive behaviors with the various forms of indirect behaviors mentioned it is clear the latter are similar enough to each other (and different from the former) to warrant inclusion within one single category. All three forms of aggression contain elements of manipulative and often covert types of aggression. In the present study, we follow the suggestion of Coyne et al. (2006) to decrease confusion and argumentation among researchers of indirect, relational, and social aggression by creating one larger construct, namely indirect victimization that encompasses the behaviors included in these forms of aggression. In physical victimization, physical damage is the instrument of harm; in verbal victimization, psychological abuse is the instrument of harm. By contrast, relationships serve as the vehicle of harm in indirect victimization (Crick, 1997). …