Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article information:
To cite this document:
Page A. Smith Larry L. Birney, (2005),"The organizational trust of elementary schools and dimensions of
student bullying", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 19 Iss 6 pp. 469 - 485
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540510617427
Downloaded on: 16 December 2014, At: 18:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 96 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2806 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm
Dimensions of
school bullying
469
Larry L. Birney
San Antonio Police Department, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose This research aims to analyse student bullying and faculty trust in elementary schools in
the state of Texas.
Design/methodology/approach Two dimensions of school bullying (teacher protection and
student bullying) and three aspects of faculty trust (in clients, colleagues and the principal) were
examined.
Findings In general, the better the organizational trust of a school, the less student bullying. In
addition, the greater degree of faculty trust in a school, the more teacher protection was evident.
However, as predicted, different dimensions of faculty trust were more or less important in affecting
the aspects of student bullying. In addition, two simple and parsimonious research instruments
designed to measure salient organizational characteristics are identified.
Research limitations/implications This study represents an addition to the extant literature on
bullying in schools; particularly the relationship between organizational trust and school bullying. It,
however, represents a beginning and not an end to the examination of school bullying and trust. Hence,
questions remain. For example, what are the institutional mechanisms that foster school trust? To what
extent does each of the aspects of trust examined in this study relate to school bullying as perceived by
students? To what extent is the collective efficacy of the faculty related to school bullying? Does faculty
gender influence teacher perceptions of organizational trust and school bullying?
Practical implications One of the more important findings of this study was that teacher trust in
the principal did not play an important role in encouraging staff to protect students from their peers.
The current research reaffirms the need for principals to assume an active role in ensuring that
teachers do not disassociate themselves from attempts to monitor, regulate and confirm incidents of
student aggression.
Originality/value This study provides further groundwork to assist school administrators in
identifying other areas sensitive to school-based aggression and trust issues such as after school
events, extracurricular activities and parent-teacher interactions.
Keywords Bullying, Trust, Students, Schools, Violence, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
IJEM
19,6
470
and May 2000 (Garrett, 2003). Furthermore, 270,000 students carry guns to school each
day for protection (Garrett, 2001). Hence, a burgeoning body of research is emerging
that supports bullying as a key element affecting increased incidents of school violence
(Kaiser Family Foundation, Children Now, 2001; US Secret Service, 2000). In fact, over
the last several decades, educators, psychologists, and sociologists across the globe
have pursued the concept of bullying and how unprovoked student aggression
deprives students of safe learning environments (Kochenderfer and Ladd, 1996;
OMoore and Hillery, 1989; Reid, 1988; Sharp, 1995; Slee, 1995; Smith and Sharp, 1994).
Further developments in the organizational sciences have also prompted
researchers and organizational theorists to focus on the importance of trust.
Research has shown that without stakeholder trust, interpersonal communication and
organizational effectiveness is compromised (Axelrod, 1984; Gambetta, 1988; Good,
1988a, b; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995). Moreover, researchers have pursued the
concept of institutional trust and how its presence or absence affects organizations.
Indeed, the literature indicates that the prevention of bullying and the cultivation of
trust represent critical factors in the development of healthy and purposefully directed
schools (Hoy et al., 1996, 1992; Smith and Hoy, 2004; Tarter et al., 1995).
The present inquiry has both theoretical and practical significance. The concepts of
bullying and organizational trust provide fertile ground for an important line of
inquiry about the nature of the workplace. In addition, for school administrators
interested in building safe and trusting relationships in their schools, the research
provides two reliable and valid diagnostic tools that are useful and easy. The focus of
the current research is on what types of trust encourage teacher protection and deter
student bullying in elementary schools. The analysis begins with a brief overview of
the nature and meaning of bullying. Then, using three specific referents, the trust of the
school is conceptualized. Next, hypotheses between school bullying and faculty trust
are developed and tested in a diverse sample of elementary schools in one state.
Finally, we offer some suggestions about how administrators can use the results of our
work to change and improve schools, and we sketch a continuing agenda of research
that will enlighten our understanding of the dynamics of organizational life.
School bullying: an international dilemma
A review of the literature shows that school bullying is an international problem.
Research undertaken over the last 20 years indicates that bullying between students
occurs in various degrees in most educational settings. First recognized as a topic
warranting scientific and educational attention in Norway in the late 1970s, research
efforts in the 1980s spread to other European countries, then to Japan and the
Americas. In the 1990s further European studies were conducted (Boulton, 1996;
Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Sharp, 1995; Whitney and Smith, 1993). In Canada,
Craig and Pepler (1997) reported that levels of bullying are consistent with studies
conducted in Scandinavia, the UK, and Australia (Craig and Pepler, 1997).
Furthermore, in reviewing the history of student aggression and school violence, it
appears that highly publicized incidents of bullying have frequently led to increased
government interest in the subject. Moreover, the media has also played a major part in
the resurgence of interest among Japanese scholars (Morita et al., 1999). To that end,
recent citizen concern and interest in bullying triggered by newspaper articles and
television reports in England and Japan (Morita et al., 1999; Smith et al., 1999) have
highlighted the issue. Although reports of school bullying are generally higher in the
USA than in European or Asian nations, only recently have researchers begun to focus
their attention on the salience of student violence and intimidation in the USA (Smith
and Hoy, 2004).
Dimensions of
school bullying
Student bullying
At first glance, student bullying would appear easy to identify. However, this has not
been the case. Although instances of bullying are numerous, the behavior is difficult to
target due to contextual circumstances. For example, two boys play at school and one
pushes the other and calls him names. Many parents, teachers, and students would
consider this common adolescent behavior. However, school stakeholders, researchers
and scholars are beginning to view this behavior from a different perspective. Is this
act really harmless? When do seemly harmless acts digress from childs play to
physical abuse? Similarly, a young girl is observed teasing another for the way she
applies makeup on her face. When does this circumstance devolve from a growth
experience to a potential cause of serious psychological harm? How are casual
observers such as teachers, parents, and students to know when to intervene and when
not to interfere? Much confusion surrounds the dilemma of schoolyard aggression and
student bullying.
471
Bullying: a definition
In the study of bullying, different definitions and the resulting views and perspectives
produce substantially different questions, answers, and conclusions. Hence, it is
imperative to identify a common definition of bullying that targets the critical
characteristics of the phenomenon.
Olweus (1986) penned one of the early definitions of bullying. He identified bullying
as a student being exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of
one or more other students (Olweus, 1986, 1991, 1993). Pikas (1989) simplified the
definition to one student picking on a weaker peer. Johnson et al. (1991) described
bullying as a willful, conscious wish to hurt, frighten, or threaten someone. In Randalls
(1991) definition, bullying is aggressive behavior arising out of a deliberate intent to
cause physical or psychological distress to others. Also, bullying has been defined as a
willful conscious desire to hurt another and induce stress (Tattum and Tattum, 1992).
Pellegrini (2002) characterized bullying in the context of socially-initiated aggression
that persists over time and according to Frey and Hoppe-Graff (1994), bullying is best
described as dominant aggression that occurs when an unprovoked child taunts,
intimidates, coerces, makes fun of, or assaults another child without a clear external
goal for this behavior. To that end, Slee (1995) outlined functions that were necessary
to constitute bullying. First, an imbalance of physical and/or psychological power must
exist between the bully and the victim. Second, the bullys negative action towards the
victim is repeated. Third, the bully must deliberately intend to hurt the victim. Finally,
the bullys negative action toward the victim is largely unprovoked. Subsequently,
Newman et al. (2000) simplified the definition of bullying given by Slee. They posited
that students are routinely involved in conflicts with one another. However, it is when
these conflicts escalate to the point of becoming systemic encounters that are
self-initiated by individuals seeking through hurtful actions to control other persons
IJEM
19,6
472
that bullying behavior occurs. They further suggest that bullying occurs when three
criteria are met:
(1) there is an imbalance of power in a relationship;
(2) the more powerful individual intentionally inflicts or attempts to inflict an
injury or discomfort onto another individual; and
(3) these acts of aggression are repeated over time.
Furthermore, French researchers Fabre-Cornali et al. (1999) conceptualized bullying as
crimes and offenses against people or against personal or school property and all the
forms of violence of the school as an institution. In addition, Batsche and Knoff (1994)
described bullying as a form of aggression in which over time one or more students
physically and psychologically harass one another. Lastly, Roland (1989) adds that
bullying is long-standing violence, physical or psychological, conducted by an
individual or group, and directed against individuals not able to defend their
situations.
A careful analysis of the various assessments and descriptions of bullying led to the
following adoption of Smith and Hoys (2004) definition because their
conceptualization targets the critical antecedents of the literature. Smith and Hoy
(2004) assert that student bullying is unprovoked conscious and aggressive action by
one or more students intended to achieve physical or psychological dominance over
others through intimidation or threat. In particular, two dimensions of school bullying
will be explored: student bullying and teacher protection.
Trust
Trust enables cooperative human endeavors (Dunn, 1988; Fukuyama, 1996; Gambetta,
1988; Kramer and Tyler, 1996) and is vital to inter-organizational relationships (Arrow,
1974; Bies et al., 1995; Blomqvist, 2002; Coleman, 1994; Fox, 1974; Gambetta, 1988;
Hosmer, 1995; Kramer and Isen, 1994; Kramer and Tyler, 1996; Lewis and Weigert,
1985; Rousseau et al., 1998). Indeed, research indicates that as trust increases, social
complexity in organizations falls (Arrow, 1974; Luhmann, 1979). Moreover, trust
increases strategic flexibility (Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999) and supports
greater organizational adaptability (Lorenz, 1988; Sako, 1994). Hence, levels of trust
among organizational members assist in determining the effectiveness of collective
action (Deutsch, 1958; Tschannen-Moran, 2001) at both the interpersonal (Granovetter,
1985) and institutional levels (Shapiro, 1987; Zucker, 1986).
Although scholars across many disciplines have widely acknowledged that trust
precipitates cooperative behavior in human endeavors, there is an equally pervasive
lack of agreement on a commonly accepted definition of the concept. Trust is a complex
concept with a variety of dimensions.
Defining trust
For over 40 years, scholars have conceptualized trust in myriad ways. For example,
Deutsch (1958) defined trust through expectations. Deutsch (1958, p. 266) posits that:
[. . .] a person has trust in the occurrence of an event if they expect the events occurrence and
their expectations lead to behavior that is perceived to have greater negative consequences if
the expectation is not confirmed than positive motivational experiences if confirmed.
Gabarro (1978, p. 298) defined trust as openness that exists between two people such
that:
Dimensions of
school bullying
[. . .] the degree to which one person feels assured that another will not take malevolent or
arbitrary actions, and the extent to which one person might expect predictability in others
behavior through what is normally expected of a person acting in good faith.
Lewis and Weigert (1985, p. 971) characterize trust as the undertaking of a risky course
of action on the:
[. . .] confident expectation that persons involved in the action will act competently and
dutifully.
Other researchers have contrasted, compared, and equated trust with behaviors such
as risk and vulnerability (Baier, 1986; Bonoma, 1976; Coleman, 1994; Deutsch, 1958;
Gambetta, 1988; Good, 1988b; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Luhmann, 1991;
Smith et al., 2001). Still others have identified confidence (Rousseau et al., 1998),
benevolence (Hoy and Kupersmith, 1985; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999), reliability
(Geist, 2002; Mishra, 1996; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000) and competence (Barber,
1983; Fukuyama, 1996; Kramer, 1996; Mishra, 1996) as salient features of the concept.
Additionally, openness and honesty (Barber, 1983; Butler and Cantrell, 1984;
Cummings and Bromiley, 1996; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Ring and Van de
Ven, 1994; Smith et al., 2001) have emerged as important facets of trust. Finally, certain
scholars evaluate trust in terms of facets, phases, bases, and degrees (Creed and Miles,
1996; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Kramer, 1994; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996;
Mayer et al., 1995; Sheppard and Tuchinsky, 1996; Smith, 2000; Zucker, 1986). In
essence, many researchers seek to identify trust behaviors (Zand, 1972), attitudes
(Jones, 1996; Jones and George, 1998; Miller, 2000), beliefs (Barber, 1983, Bromiley and
Cummings, 1995; Gabarro, 1978; Rotter, 1967) and expectancies (Rotter, 1980; Scanzoni,
1979) over time.
Despite the difficulty in defining the concept of trust, a comprehensive analysis of
the literature reveals some consensus. Many researchers posit that trust is general
confidence and optimism in occurring events or believing in others in the absence of
compelling reasons to disbelieve (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1997). They argue
against probability reduction and agree that multidimensional definitions of trust are
the best way to conceptualize the phenomenon. Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999) offer
the most comprehensive definition of the construct. They posit:
473
IJEM
19,6
474
The latter definition will be employed in this research because it captures the key
elements of contemporary analyses of trust and it has been applied to the study of
organizational trust in schools. In particular, three referents of faculty trust will be
explored: trust in clients (students and parents), trust in colleagues, and trust in the
principal.
candidates for the study. Grade span levels including grades Pre-K 6 defined
elementary schools. Schools in the sample represented the entire range of socioeconomic
status (SES). In fact, data from the Texas Education Association support the
representativeness of the sample in terms of size, SES, and urban-rural balance.
Research instruments
In order to test the hypotheses, operational measures of school bullying and faculty
trust were required. The Bully Scale was used to measure aspects of school bullying
(Smith and Hoy, 2004) and the Omnibus T-scale was employed to tap dimensions of
faculty trust (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 2003).
Bully Scale. The Bully Scale is a 14-item Likert instrument that measures two aspects
of school bullying: teacher protection and student bullying. The inventory consistently
demonstrates high reliabilities of the scales and strong construct validity (Smith and Hoy,
2004). In the current sample, the reliability coefficients were 0.73 (student bullying) and
0.96 (teacher protection). Teachers describe their behaviors along a six-point Likert scale
ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. For example, teachers are asked to
describe how strongly they agree with the statements that Teachers in this school
generally overlook student bullying and In this school, teachers try to protect students
who are different. Sample items for each bullying dimension are given in Table I.
Omnibus T-scale. The Omnibus T-scale is a 26-item Likert instrument that
measures collective perceptions of faculty trust in the school, that is, faculty trust in
colleagues, in the principal, and in clients (students and parents). Reliabilities are
consistently high (0.90 to 0.98 range). In the current sample the alpha coefficients of
reliability ranged from 0.93 to 0.98. Moreover, the construct validity of the scales has
been supported in previous research (Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Teachers
respond to the Omnibus T-scale by describing the faculty along a six-point Likert
response set ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. For example,
teachers are asked how strongly they agree with the statements Teachers in this
school can rely on the principal, and Teachers in this school are open with each
other. Sample items for each trust dimension are given in Table I.
Dimensions of
school bullying
475
Figure 2.
Key predictors of student
bullying and teacher
protection
IJEM
19,6
Sample items
Bullying dimension
Teacher protection
476
Student bullying
Trust dimension
Faculty trust in colleagues
Faculty trust in principal
Table I.
Sample items for each
dimension of student
bullying and faculty trust
Teachers in this school reach out to help students who are harassed by
other students
In this school, teachers try to protect students who are different
Students in this school threaten other with physical harm
Students in this school make fun of other students
Teachers in this school typically look out for each other
Teachers in this school are suspicious of each othera
Teachers in this school have faith in the integrity of the principal
The principal doesnt tell teachers what is really going ona
Teachers in this school believe what parents tell them
Students here are secretivea
Table II.
Correlations among trust
scales
Trust in clients
Trust in colleagues
Trust in principal
Trust in clients
Trust in colleagues
Trust in principal
(0.97)
0.58 *
(0.97)
0.42 *
0.46 *
(0.98)
Notes: * p , 0:01; Alpha coefficients of reliability for the subsets are displayed in parentheses
It was predicted that facets of school bullying would be related to aspects of faculty
trust. The first step in measuring the relationship was to correlate each aspect of
bullying with each trust dimension. As predicted, the elements of school bullying were
correlated significantly with the dimensions of faculty trust; however, some
relationships were stronger than others. Student bullying was strongly and
negatively related to trust in clients (r 20:66, p . 0:01). That is, the more student
bullying, the less teachers trust parents and students. In addition, the relationship
between teacher protection and trust in colleagues was moderately strong (r 0:55,
p . 0:01). Thus, the more teacher protection the greater the collegial trust of the
faculty. All the other relationships were statistically significant, but not as strong.
These results are summarized in Table III.
Next, multiple regression analysis was used to provide a more refined picture of the
school bullying and faculty trust relationships as well as to test the hypotheses of the
study. It was hypothesized that different dimensions of faculty trust would predict
different aspects of school bullying.
First, student bullying was regressed on all three trust variables as well as SES.
Because SES is often related to the climate of the school, it was entered simultaneously
with the trust variables as a control. The overall hypothesis was supported; elements of
faculty trust formed a linear combination that explained a significant portion of the
variance in student bullying (R 0:70, p , 0:01, with an adjusted R square of 0.47);
that is, the trust variables explained 47 percent of the variance. It was expected that
both client trust and trust in the principal would make significant independent
contributions to the variance, but faculty trust in clients was the only school trust
variable to make a significant independent contribution to student bullying
(b 20:38, p , 0:01). SES also made a significant independent contribution to the
variance (r 20:38, p . 0:01). In fact, faculty trust in clients and SES explain most of
the student bullying variance.
Next, teacher protection was regressed on all three trust variables as well as SES.
The overall hypothesis was supported; elements of faculty trust formed a linear
combination that explained a significant portion of the variance in teacher protection
(R 0:62, p , 0:01, with an adjusted R square of 0.36); that is, the trust variables
explained 36 percent of the variance. It was expected that collegial trust and trust in the
principal would be the strongest predictors of teacher protection of students, but only
trust in colleagues and SES emerged as predictors. In fact, both trust in colleagues
(b 0:34, p , 0:01) and SES (b 0:28, p , 0:05) made significant, independent
contributions to the variance. However, trust in colleagues emerged as the strongest
Trust and bully variables
W/SES and size
Student bullying
Teacher protection
Trust in principal
Trust in clients
SES
Size
Teacher
protection
Trust in
principal
Trust in
clients
Trust in
colleagues
20.64
2 0.20 *
0.36 * *
2 0.66 * *
0.48 * *
0.42 * *
20.41 * *
0.55 * *
0.46 * *
0.58 * *
SES
Size
2 0.67 * *
0.51 * *
0.30 * *
0.79 * *
0.54 * *
0.20 *
2 0.14
2 0.16
2 0.35 * *
2 0.20 *
0.49 * *
Dimensions of
school bullying
477
Table III.
Correlations between
dimensions of trust and
aspects of school bullying
IJEM
19,6
478
Discussion
In general, the hypothesis that faculty trust would be negatively related to student
bullying and positively related to teacher protection was supported. Each aspect of
school bullying was significantly related to the dimensions of faculty trust. However,
as expected, different dimensions of trust were more or less important depending on
which aspect of school bullying was the focus.
Faculty trust and student bullying
The results with respect to student bullying were not wholly expected. Although it was
anticipated that both trust in clients and trust in the principal would be predictors of
student bullying, only client trust made a strong, independent contribution to the
explanation of student bullying. Even though student bullying was related to faculty
trust in the principal (r 20:20, p , 0:05), it did not have an independent effect on
student bullying (b 20:08, n.s.). In schools where teachers trust parents and
students positive and open relationships develop between school constituents (Smith
et al., 2001). We suspected that faculty trust in clients promotes greater teacher
sensitivity and connectedness to school stakeholder issues. Hence, teachers who trust
parents and students to engage in behaviors that support the school reciprocate by
nurturing a safe and orderly academic environment. Thus, salient school groups
(teachers, students and parents) seek to reduce problems such as student bullying that
might inhibit the quest for school achievement. In fact, trust in clients may be an
integral moderator of student bullying; that is, faculty who have dedicated time and
effort to developing trusting relationships with school clients are likely to be more
aware of student issues and incidents of school aggression. We also anticipated that
faculty trust in the principal would facilitate less student bullying, but that was not the
case. The findings suggest that in schools where bullying occurs and the faculty trust
each other, trust in the principal is not necessarily an antecedent to addressing the
problem. This is puzzling. Principals function as school leaders. They set the tone of
the school and establish structures for efficient learning in the classrooms. Why, then,
is faculty trust in the principal not important to curbing student bullying? We believe
this question merits further study.
Table IV.
Multiple regression of
student bullying and
teacher protection
Student bullying
beta
20.41
20.20 *
20.66
20.67 *
2 0.01
2 0.08
2 0.38 * *
2 0.38 * *
Teacher protection
R
beta
0.55 * *
0.36 * *
0.48 * *
0.51 * *
0.34 * *
0.11
0.02
0.28 *
Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01; student bullying R 0:70, Adjusted R square 0:47; Teacher
protection R 0:62, Adjusted R square 0:36
Dimensions of
school bullying
479
IJEM
19,6
480
organizational trust. This study is predicated on gaps in the literature that fail to point
to specific facets of trust that may well affect student aggression in schools. To that
end, this research unearthed two dimensions of faculty trust (trust in colleagues and
trust in clients) that were critical in promoting higher levels of teacher protection and
lower levels of student bullying. However, this research represents a beginning and not
an end to the examination of school bullying and trust. Hence, questions remain. For
example:
.
What are the institutional mechanisms that foster school trust?
.
To what extent does each of the aspects of trust examined in this study relate to
school bullying as perceived by students?
.
To what extent is the collective efficacy of the faculty related to school bullying?
.
Does faculty gender influence teacher perceptions of organizational trust and
school bullying?
Trust is also an important aspect of school life. Like many other institutional factors, it
is an important end-in-itself, but it is also likely related to other important
organizational outcomes. For example, to what extent does faculty trust in clients
influence collaboration and cooperation with parents? To what extent is faculty trust in
the principal related to teachers propensity to innovate and take risks? To what degree
is faculty trust in the principal related to efficacy of the teaching staff?
The current study focused on faculty trust and school bullying. It is difficult to
imagine that these salient school factors can be independently garrisoned. At the
organizational level, a multitude of factors serve to complement the further study of
schools. Thus, these are only a few of the general research questions that can be
addressed using the heuristic concepts of school bullying and trust.
Practical implications
One of the more important findings of this study was that teacher trust in the principal
did not play an important role in encouraging staff to protect students from
intimidation, threat, and aggressive actions from their peers. The current research
reaffirms the need for principals to assume an active role in ensuring that teachers do
not disassociate themselves from attempts to monitor, regulate and confirm incidents
of student aggression.
For school administrators interested in building safe and trusting schools, the
research provides two reliable and valid diagnostic tools, the Bully Scale and the
Omnibus T-scale. Although each of the instruments measure different constructs, the
scales represent two simple descriptive questionnaires that require little time to
complete. Each scale is precise in its objectives, yet teacher friendly. Teachers do not
object to responding to the inventory; in fact, personal observations led us to conclude
that they rather enjoy the opportunity to describe anonymously the interpersonal
relations in their schools.
Administrators can use the scales to assess their own perceptions as well as the
perceptions of their teachers. In fact, it is not unusual for principals to describe their
schools in more favorable terms than their teachers (Smith, 2000). Subsequently, trust
or bully profiles of the school can be drawn and principals and teachers can decide if
conditions in the school merit attention. If perceptual differences surface, discrepancies
can be addressed and appropriate actions can be taken. For example, if teachers
perceive the school as volatile and prone to student bullying, it is critical for principals
to come to know why that is the case, and then take appropriate action. Likewise, if
school trust issues surface, the administration must target the problem and facilitate a
solution. Unfortunately, the Bully Scale and the Omnibus T-scale simply provide
snapshots of two important school concerns; they do not provide explanations.
However, the instruments can be used as tools to identify symptoms of interpersonal
problems in schools. School leaders, armed with the information gleaned from the
measures, can then pursue collaborative plans of action dedicated to dealing with the
problems.
This study provides further groundwork to assist school administrators in
identifying other areas sensitive to school-based aggression and trust issues such as
after school events, extracurricular activities and parent-teacher interactions. Once
these areas are recognized and identified, problem-solving teams can be brought
together to understand the problems, diagnose their causes, and develop plans of
action better. The school administrators can then use the refined information to
establish training programs that address both personal and institutional needs. The
result is a planned effort to develop administrators, colleagues, and school clients into a
more cohesive, safe and trusting group. Finally, armed with the knowledge of trust and
bullying, and an array of bullying awareness training framed in the context of a
trusting environment, administrators and teachers can begin to deal with the
challenges surrounding increasing levels of student aggression in schools.
References
Arrow, K.J. (1974), The Limits of Organization, Norton, New York, NY.
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Baier, A.C. (1986), Trust and antitrust, Ethics, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 231-60.
Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Batsche, G.M. and Knoff, H.M. (1994), Bullies and their victims: understanding a pervasive
problem in the schools, School Psychology Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 165-74.
Bies, R.J., Sheppard, B. and Lewicki, R. (1995), Research on Negotiations in Organizations, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT.
Blomqvist, K. (2002), Partnering in the dynamic environment: the role of trust in asymmetric
technology partnership formation, Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis, No. 122.
Bonoma, T.V. (1976), Conflict, cooperation, and trust in three power systems, Behavioral
Science, Vol. 21 No. 76, pp. 499-514.
Boulton, M.J. (1996), Lunchtime supervisors-attitudes towards playful fighting and ability to
differentiate between playful and aggressive fighting: an intervention survey, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 367-81.
Boulton, M.J. and Underwood, K. (1992), Bully/victim problems among middle school children,
British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 73-87.
Bromiley, P. and Cummings, L.L. (1995), Organizations with trust, in Bies, R., Lemicke, R. and
Sheppard, B. (Eds), Research in Negotiations, 5th ed., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 219-47.
Butler, J.K. and Cantrell, R.S. (1984), A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic
trust in superiors and subordinates, Psychological Reports, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 81-105.
Coleman, J.S. (1994), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dimensions of
school bullying
481
IJEM
19,6
Craig, W. and Pepler, D. (1997), Observations of bullying and victimization in the schoolyard,
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 41-60.
482
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), The organizational trust inventory (OTI): development
and validation, in Kramer, R, and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 302-30.
Creed, D.W. and Miles, E.M. (1996), Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework linking
organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls, in
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 16-38.
Deutsch, M. (1958), Trust and suspicion, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 265-79.
Dunn, M.H. (1988), Trust and political agency, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and
Breaking Cooperative Relations, Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 73-93.
Fabre-Cornali, D., Emin, J.C. and Pain (1999), France, in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Jungar-Tas, J.,
Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P.T. (Eds), The Nature of School Bullying: A
Cross-national Perspective, Routledge, London.
Fox, A. (1974), Beyond Contract: Power and Trust Relations, Faber, London.
Frey, C. and Hoppe-Graff, S. (1994), Serious and playful aggression in Brazilian girls and boys,
Sex Roles, Vol. 30, pp. 249-69.
Fukuyama, F. (1996), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
Gabarro, J.J. (1978), The development of trust, influence, and expectations, in Athos, A.G. and
Gabarro, J.J. (Eds), Interpersonal Behavior: Communication and Understanding in
Relationships, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 290-303.
Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Blackwell, New York,
NY.
Garrett, A. (2001), Keeping American Schools Safe, McFarland, Jefferson, NC.
Garrett, A. (2003), Bullying in American Schools, McFarland, Jefferson, NC.
Geist, J. (2002), Predictors of faculty trust in elementary schools: enabling bureaucracy, teacher
professionalism, and academic press, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
Good, D. (1988a), Can we trust?, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative
Relations, Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 213-38.
Good, D. (1988b), Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust:
Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 31-48.
Granovetter, M.S. (1985), Economic action, social structure, and embeddedness, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Hoover, J.H., Oliver, R. and Hazler, R.J. (1992), Bullying: perceptions of adolescent victims in the
Midwestern USA, School Psychology International, Vol. 13, pp. 5-16.
Hosmer, L.T. (1995), Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical
ethics, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 379-403.
Hoy, W.K. and Kupersmith, W.J. (1985), The meaning and measure of faculty trust, Educational
and Psychological Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999), Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in
urban elementary schools, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 184-208.
Hoy, W.K. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003), The conceptualization and measurement of faculty
trust in schools: the Omnibus T-scale, in Hoy, W. and Miskel, C. (Eds), Studies in Leading
and Organizing Schools, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 181-208.
Hoy, W.K., Tarter, C.J. and Witkoskie, L. (1992), Faculty trust in colleagues: linking the principal
with school effectiveness, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 40-7.
Hoy, W.K., Hoffman, J., Sabo, D. and Bliss, J.R. (1996), The organizational climate of middle
schools: the development and test of the OCDQ-RM, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 41-59.
Johnson, M., Munn, P. and Edwards, L. (1991), Action against Bullying: A Support Pack for
Schools, The Scottish Council for Educational Research, Edinburgh.
Jones, G.R. and George, J.M. (1998), The experience and evolution of trust: implications for
cooperation and teamwork, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 531-46.
Jones, K. (1996), Trust as an affective attitude, Ethics, October, pp. 4-25.
Kaiser Family Foundation, Children Now (2001), Nickelodeon: Talking with Kids about Tough
Issues: A National Survey of Parents and Kids, Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park,
CA.
Kochenderfer, B.J. and Ladd, G.W. (1996), Peer victimization: cause or consequence of school
maladjustment?, Child Development, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1305-17.
Kramer, R.M. (1994), The sinister attribution error: paranoid cognition and collective distrust in
organizations, Motivations and Emotion, Vol. 18, pp. 199-230.
Kramer, R.M. (1996), Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic
relation: trust and the intuitive auditor at work, in Kramer, R. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in
Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 216-45.
Kramer, R.M. and Isen, A. (1994), Trust and distrust: its psychological and social dimensions,
Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 18, pp. 105-7.
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (1996), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships,
in Kramer, R. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 114-39.
Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A.J. (1985), Trust as a social organization, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4,
pp. 967-85.
Lorenz, E.H. (1988), Neither friends nor strangers: informal networks of subcontracting in
French industry, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative
Relations, Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 194-210.
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Luhmann, N. (1991), Trust and Power, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), An integrative model of organizational
trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Miller, J. (2000), Trust: the moral importance of an emotional attitude, Practical Philosophy,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 45-54.
Mishra, A. (1996), Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality to trust, in Kramer, R. and
Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-79.
Dimensions of
school bullying
483
IJEM
19,6
484
Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, Y. and Taki, M. (1999), Japan, in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y.,
Jungar-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (Eds), The Nature of School Bullying:
A Cross-national Perspective, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 309-23.
Nansel, T.R. and Overpeck, M. (2001), Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and
association with psychological adjustment, Journal of the American Medical Association,
Vol. 285 No. 16, pp. 2094-100.
Newman, D.A., Horne, A.M. and Bartolomucci, C.L. (2000), Bully-busters; A Teachers Manual for
Helping Bullies, Victims, and By-standers, Research Press, Champaign, IL.
Olweus, D. (1986), Aggression and hormones: behavioral relationship with testosterone and
adrenaline, in Olweus, D., Block, J. and Radke-Yarrow, M. (Eds), Development of
Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 51-72.
Olweus, D. (1991), Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: basic facts and effects of a
school-based intervention program, in Pepper, D.J. and Rubin, K.H. (Eds), The
Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 411-48.
Olweus, D. (1993), Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do, Blackwell, Oxford.
OMoore, A.M. and Hillery, B. (1989), Bullying in Dublin schools, Irish Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 426-41.
Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pellegrini, A.D. (1995), School Recess and Playground Behavior: Educational and Developmental
Roles, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Pellegrini, A.D. (2002), Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment during the transition to
middle school, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 151-63.
Pikas, A. (1989), A pure concept of mobbing gives the best results for treatment, School
Psychology International, Vol. 10, pp. 95-104.
Randall, P.E. (1991), The Prevention of School Bullying, University of Hull, Hull.
Reid, K. (1988), Bullying and persistent school absenteeism, in Tattum, D. and Lane, D. (Eds),
Bullying in Schools, Trentham Books, Stroke-on-Trent.
Ring, P.S. and Van De Ven, A.H. (1994), Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 90-118.
Roland, E. (1989), A system-oriented strategy against bullying, in Roland, E. and Munthe, E.
(Eds), Bullying: An International Perspective, Fulton, London, pp. 143-51.
Rotter, J.B. (1967), A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 651-65.
Rotter, J.B. (1980), Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility, American Psychologist,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), Not so different after all: a
cross-discipline view of trust, The Academy of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Sako, M. (1994), Supplier relationship and innovation, in Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R. (Eds),
Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Elger, Aldershot, pp. 242-68.
Scanzoni, J. (1979), Social exchange and behavioral interdependence, in Burgess, R.L. and
Huston, T.L. (Eds), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 61-98.
Shapiro, S.P. (1987), The social control of impersonal trust, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 623-58.
Sharp, S. (1995), How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal
well-being and educational progress of secondary aged students, Educational and Child
Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 81-8.
Sheppard, B.H. and Tuchinsky, M. (1996), Micro-ob and the network organization, in Kramer, R.
and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 140-65.
Slee, P.T. (1995), Peer victimization and its relationship to depression among Australian
primary students, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-62.
Smith, P.A. (2000), The organizational health of high schools and dimensions of faculty trust,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Smith, P.A. and Hoy, W.A. (2004), Teachers perceptions of student bullying: a conceptual and
empirical analysis, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 308-26.
Smith, P.A., Hoy, W.A. and Sweetland, S.R. (2001), Organizational health of high schools and
dimensions of faculty trust, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 12, pp. 135-50.
Smith, P.K. and Sharp, S. (1994), School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives, Routledge, New York,
NY.
Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Jungar-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R. and Slee, P. (1999), The Nature of
School Bullying: A Cross-national Perspective, Routledge, New York, NY.
Tarter, C.J., Sabo, D. and Hoy, W.K. (1995), Middle school climate, faculty trust, and
effectiveness: a path analysis, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 41-9.
Tattum, D. and Tattum, E. (1992), Social Education and Personal Development, Fulton, London.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001), Collaboration and the need for trust, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 308-31.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W.K. (1997), Trust: a conceptual and empirical analysis, paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL, March.
Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2000), A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature,
meaning, and measurement of trust, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 70, pp. 547-93.
US Secret Service (2000), Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted
Violence in Schools, National Threat Assessment Center, Washington, DC, October.
Whitney, I. and Smith, P.K. (1993), A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools, Educational Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 3-25.
Young-Ybarra, C. and Wiersema, M. (1999), The strategic flexibility in information technology
alliances: the influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory,
Organizational Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 439-59.
Zand, D.E. (1972), Trust and managerial problem solving, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 229-39.
Zucker, L.G. (1986), The production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, p. 55.
Further reading
Boulton, M.J. (1991), A comparison of structural and contextual features of middle school
childrens playful and aggressive fighting, Ethology and Sociobiology, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 119-45.
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986), Merriam-Webster, Springfield, MA.
Dimensions of
school bullying
485
1. Reihaneh Shagholi, Sufean Hussin, Saedah Siraj, Zahra Naimie, Fereshteh Assadzadeh, Farzaneh Moayedi.
2010. Value creation through trust, decision making and teamwork in educational environment. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 2:2, 255-259. [CrossRef]
2. Tuba Yava, Vehbi elik. 2010. Differentiated trust in today's schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 2, 4330-4335. [CrossRef]
3. Page A. Smith, Alan R. Shoho. 2007. Higher Education Trust, Rank and Race: A Conceptual and
Empirical Analysis. Innovative Higher Education 32:3, 125-138. [CrossRef]