3

SCHOOL CLIMATE, BULLYING,

AND SCHOOL VIOLENCE
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DOROTHY L. ESPELAGE AND JUN SUNG HONG

Literature on school violence and bullying frequently highlights the

importance of school climate in reducing violence and creating a safe school
environment (Benbenishty, Astor, Roziner, & Wrabel, 2016). Thus, effective
school violence prevention and intervention programs need to take a com-
prehensive approach by considering school climate. The aim of this chap-
ter is to explore school climate and its relevance to various dimensions of
school violence, including bullying and harassment. The chapter consists of
the following: an overview of school climate, including definition and con-
ceptualization; an overview of research on the link between school climate
and school violence; and the relevance of school climate in school violence
prevention.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000106-003
School Safety and Violence Prevention: Science, Practice, Policy, M. J. Mayer and S. R. Jimerson (Editors)
Copyright © 2019 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

45
 DEFINITION AND CONCEPTUALIZATION
OF SCHOOL CLIMATE

The scientific study of organization climate was first undertaken in

the 1950s (Zullig, Koopman, Patton, & Ubbes, 2010). In the earlier studies
on organizational climate, attempts were made to explore the influences of
organizational environments on outcomes, including morale, productivity,
and turnover (Argyris, 1958; March & Simon, 1958; Zullig et al., 2010).
During the late 1970s, scholars examined student outcomes of school cli-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

mate (e.g., Brookover et al., 1978), and in the early and mid-1990s, studies
also focused on certain aspects of the school climate, such as classrooms
and teachers (Griffith, 1995; Stockard & Mayberry, 1992). Since then, the
research on school climate has been growing, and the literature points to
various dimensions of school climate (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2013).
Dimensions of school climate measured in previous studies contain the
following: order, safety, and discipline; academic outcomes; peer and social
relationships; school facilities; and school connectedness (see Zullig et al.,
2010). In addition to focusing on interrelationships, Welsh (2000) included
a cognitive dimension in the definition of school climate: “The unwritten
beliefs, values, and attitudes that become the style of interaction between
students, teachers, and administrators. School climate sets the parameters of
acceptable behavior among all school actors, and it assigns individual and
institutional responsibility for school safety” (Welsh, 2000, p. 89). Cohen,
McCabe, Michelli, and Pickeral (2009) also proposed that school climate
is measured by the quality and character of school life, which is based on
students’ experience of school life, and reflects goals, values, norms, inter­
personal relations, teaching and learning, and organizational structure (p. 10).
Cohen and colleagues’ (2009) definition consists of not only the physical
aspects of the school environment but also the social aspects, which sug-
gests that the entire school is the appropriate unit of analysis (Zullig et al.,
2010). School climate is a multidimensional construct, but there is a grow-
ing consensus on the essential components of a positive school climate. On
the basis of a review of more than 200 studies, Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, and
Higgins-D’Alessandro (2013) identified four major components of school
climate: safety, relationships, teaching and learning, and institutional envi-
ronment. A positive school climate consists of norms that support safety
and respect for all school members and includes staff that model prosocial
behaviors.
Extensive research on school climate has attempted to link school
climate to various school outcomes, such as academic achievement, aggres-
sion, and school climates (Zullig et al., 2010). Studies have shown that having

46       espelage and hong

 a positive school climate positively affects students’ behavior, self-esteem,
self-concept, identity formation, and school engagement (Aldridge et al.,
2016; Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Greytak, 2013; Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017).
A positive school climate is also shown to be negatively related to risk and
antisocial behaviors, including alcohol and drug use and absenteeism (Bond
et al., 2007; J. Klein, Cornell, & Konold, 2012; McEvoy & Welker, 2000).
Furthermore, students with positive perceptions of their school climate are
less likely to display psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, sui-
cidal thoughts, and conduct problems (Bond et al., 2007; Hatzenbuehler,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Birkett, Van Wagenen, & Meyer, 2014; Loukas, Suzuki, & Horton, 2006;
Way, Reddy, & Rhodes, 2007).

THE LINK BETWEEN SCHOOL CLIMATE

AND SCHOOL VIOLENCE

School Bullying

Scholars have conceptualized bullying as a type of aggressive act that is

characterized by a power imbalance; the perpetrator is typically bigger and
stronger than the victim, and the victim has difficulty defending himself
or herself (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Pellegrini, 2002). Smith,
Schneider, Smith, and Ananiadou (2004) also conceptualized bullying as
“a particularly vicious kind of aggressive behavior distinguished by repeated
acts against weaker victims who cannot easily defend themselves” (p. 547). In
an attempt to create agreement among researchers, in 2014, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a uniform research defini-
tion of bullying, which stated that
Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or
group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that
involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated mul-
tiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or
distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social,
or educational harm. (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin,
2014, p. 7)
Research findings vary over the years in terms of the prevalence of bully­
ing and peer victimization in U.S. schools. For instance, Brunstein Klomek,
Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, and Gould’s (2007) study, which investi-
gated the association between bullying, depression, and suicidal behavior
among high school students in six New York school districts, found that 9%
of the students reported frequent victimization and 13% reported bullying

school climate, bullying, and school violence      47

 others. On the other hand, Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, and Kernic (2005)
reported from a sample of elementary schools in an urban, West Coast
public school district that 22% of the children were involved in bullying, as
a victim, bully, or both. Similarly, Nansel and colleagues (2001), using a
nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States, found
that 30% of the sample reported moderate or frequent involvement in bully-
ing. According to the Department of Education, the occurrence of bullying
decreased from 29% in 1999–2000 to 16% in 2013–2014 (Zhang, Musu-
Gillette, & Oudekerk, 2016); however, these decreases were not found in
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

schools with a presence of gangs or other crime or violent issues.

It is conceivable that if students have positive perceptions of their school
climate, they are less likely to engage in externalizing or violent behaviors and
feel safer in their school (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Goldweber,
Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2013; Wienke Totura et al., 2009). Not surprisingly,
numerous studies have reported a negative association between positive school
climate and bullying and peer victimization (Lee & Song, 2012; D. Wilson,
2004). Moreover, one study using a statewide sample of 7,300 ninth-grade stu-
dents and 2,900 teachers from 290 high schools showed that positive aspects
of school climate (e.g., consistent enforcement of school discipline and avail-
ability of caring adults) were related to students perceiving their school as safe
(Gregory et al., 2010). In addition, research has documented that a school
climate that is characterized as supportive is positively linked to students’
likelihood of seeking help when they are exposed to bullying and violence in
school. A study conducted by Eliot, Cornell, Gregory, and Fan (2010) found
from a sample of 7,318 ninth-grade students from 291 high schools that stu-
dents who perceived their teachers and school staff to be supportive were more
likely to have a positive attitude toward seeking help for bullying and threats
of violence.
On the other hand, a school climate characterized as negative, such as
exemplified by high rates of violent incidents and students feeling unsafe, can
foster violence perpetration and victimization and inhibit reporting of such
behavior in schools (Bandyopadhyay, Cornell, & Konold, 2009; Bradshaw,
Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2009; Espelage et al., 2000; Espelage, Polanin, &
Low, 2014; Gage, Prykanowski, & Larson, 2014; Giovazolias, Kourkoutas,
Mitsopoulou, & Georgiadi, 2010; Gower, McMorris, & Eisenberg, 2015).
Social disorganization theorists have suggested that certain levels of disorder
in the school climate may be an important predictor of bullying behavior
(Bradshaw et al., 2009). Empirical studies have shown that students involved
in bullying as perpetrators, victims, or both are likely to have more nega-
tive school perceptions (Nickerson, Singleton, Schnurr, & Collen, 2014).
Giovazolias and colleagues’ (2010) study, which examined the link between
perceived school climate and bullying in a sample of 369 elementary school

48       espelage and hong

 students, found that students’ negative perceptions of their school climate pre-
dicted bullying behavior and involvement in risky behavior. Another study,
using school-level approaches for bullying prevention, found in a sample
of 4,742 students in Grades 3 through 12 across 3 school years that school
climates characterized as having respect for diversity predicted within-class
decreases in bullying (Gage et al., 2014). Also among high-risk elementary
school students, adult support in school was found to be significantly associated
with within-class reductions of bullying (Gage et al., 2014).
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Sexual Harassment

Relative to research on the link between school climate and bullying,

scholarship on the link between other forms of school violence, namely peer-
to-peer sexual harassment, is limited. Data suggest that sexual harassment
perpetration (which can also include being called “gay”) is common among
school-age adolescents, with one national study reporting sexual harassment
rates of 56% for females and 40% for males (Hill & Kearl, 2011). Extant
research found that sexual harassment is likely in schools where the school
climate is characterized as being tolerant of harassment of girls, students feel-
ing disconnected from school, and having low level of staff and student rap-
port (Rinehart & Espelage, 2016). For instance, Ormerod, Collinsworth, and
Perry (2008) found that severe forms of peer-to-peer sexual harassment are
likely in school climates that are supportive of the harassment of girls. Schnoll,
Connolly, Josephson, Pepler, and Simkins-Strong (2015) also reported from
a sample of 986 middle school students that students feeling disconnected
from school was a significant factor for sexual harassment victimization in
school. Rinehart and Espelage’s (2016) study of 1,447 teachers and staff and
3,616 sixth-grade students across 36 middle schools found that when teachers
and staff were intolerant of sexual harassment, students were less likely to
experience sexual harassment or homophobic name-calling than were stu-
dents in schools where teachers and staff were dismissive of sexual harassment.
In a mixed-methods study of sexual harassment among 878 middle
school students, Espelage, Hong, Rinehart, and Doshi (2016) asked stu-
dents to indicate where sexual harassment happened at school and then
were asked to describe the most upsetting sexual harassment experience. Of
the middle school students who had experienced sexual harassment, 28%
responded that sexual harassment took place in the hallways, followed by
classrooms (26%), gym locker rooms (15%), gym class (15%), and the lunch
room (5%). The most upsetting and unwanted incidents were described by
229 students through an open-ended question, and these responses were
coded by two independent raters. The following types of sexual harassment
victimization experiences were reported: (a) verbal—homophobic language

school climate, bullying, and school violence      49

 (23%), (b) verbal—sexual commentary and sexual rumor spreading (28%),
(c) physical—being touched (21%), (d) pulling down pants (7%), (e) being
sexually assaulted (5%), and (f) dismissiveness of victimization (14%). Girls
mainly reported boys as perpetrators, whereas boys in most cases reported
their perpetrators as other boys and close friends.

VIOLENCE INVOLVING TEACHERS AND EDUCATORS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Scholarship on school violence for the most part has focused on student-
to-student violence and victimization. However, another component of
school violence that has received limited attention in the United States is
violence involving teachers and other educators, which can range from disrespect-
ful behaviors to intimidation, threats, theft, property damage, and physical
assault (Espelage et al., 2013). To date, compared with studies conducted in
other countries (e.g., Chen & Astor, 2009; Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007; Khoury-
Kassabri, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2009; C. M. Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011),
there are relatively fewer published studies on violence against teachers in
U.S. schools (e.g., G. D. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson,
2005; Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2012; Reddy et al., 2013). The National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that 10% of elementary
school teachers and 9% of secondary school teachers in the United States
were threatened with physical harm by a student in 2011–2012. Moreover,
a higher percentage of teachers in U.S. public schools versus private schools
have been threatened with injury (10% vs. 3%) or physically attacked by a
student (6% vs. 3%). The NCES also reported that the percentage of public
schools that reported the occurrence of student verbal abuse of teachers
decreased from 13% in 1999–2000 to 5% in 2013–2014. On the other hand,
a study by the American Psychological Association Task Force on Violence
Directed Against Teachers, which comprised a national survey of K–12
teachers from 48 states, reported that more than 70% of the teachers reported
experiencing at least one type of victimization (e.g., obscene remarks and
gestures, verbal threats, Internet victimization, theft and property damage,
physical assaults, having a weapon pulled on them) in the current or past
year. Of these, 94% reported being victimized by a student (McMahon et al.,
2014). Educators’ perceived victimization has been found to be associated
with fear, mental health symptoms, difficulty with interpersonal relation-
ships, impaired work performance, and lower job satisfaction (e.g., Dzuka
& Dalbert, 2007; Reddy et al., 2013; C. M. Wilson et al., 2011). The extant
research literature on violence against teachers/educators suggests this type
of violence is a result of a complex interaction among student behaviors,
teacher practices and training, classroom management strategies, the overall

50       espelage and hong

 school climate, and violence issues in the larger community surrounding the
school (Espelage et al., 2013).

WEAPONS AT SCHOOL

Violent deaths and serious injuries resulting from high-profile school

rampage shootings have garnered considerable media attention over the
years, raising concerns about the safety of schools in the United States. These
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

shooting events have also been pivotal in the development of policies and
programs to ensure students’ safety in school, including sustained efforts to
curtail students’ carrying lethal weapons in the schoolyard.
In contrast to the increased public concerns about firearms-related
school violence, in actuality, the proportion of weapon carrying and violence
involving weapons in school is relatively small. According to Yun and Hwang’s
(2011) study, which included a survey of a nationally representative sample
of high school students (ninth through 12th grade), 8% reported that they
were injured or threatened with a weapon in school. Another study using the
California Healthy Kids Survey (West Ed Health and Development Program
for the California Department of Education, 2012) found that approxi-
mately 5% of secondary school students reported carrying a firearm and 10%
reported carrying other lethal weapons (e.g., knife) to school. In addition,
the NCES reported that the percentage of students in Grades 9 through 12
who reported carrying a weapon during the previous 30 days declined from
12% to 5% between 1993 and 2013 (Zhang et al., 2016). Moreover, accord-
ing to Child Trends Databank (2014), the proportion of students reporting
that they carried a weapon decreased from 26.1% in 1991 to 18% in 2013.
However, among White students, there was an increase in weapon carrying
in school from 17% in 2011 to 21% in 2013 (Child Trends Databank, 2014).
Furthermore, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System of the CDC
found that nationwide, 5% of students reported having carried a weapon on
school property, and the prevalence was higher among males than females
(8% vs. 3%) and highest among White males (8% vs. 7% for Hispanic males
and 5% for Black males; Kann et al., 2014). The survey also found that
across 34 states, the prevalence ranged from 3% to 10%.

GANG ACTIVITIES IN SCHOOL

Youth gangs have been recognized as a serious problem in the United

States (Decker, Melde, & Pyrooz, 2013; Pyrooz & Sweeten, 2015). The defi-
nition of a gang is complex, and the ability to accurately measure gangs can

school climate, bullying, and school violence      51

 impact how gang problems are addressed (Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor,
2001; Naber, May, Decker, Minor, & Wells, 2006). Despite the complexity of
defining youth gang affiliation and membership, recent scholarship on gang
membership specifies characteristics defining youth gangs: “a street gang in
any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activ-
ity is part of its group identity” (M. W. Klein & Maxson, 2006, p. 4). Some
researchers have defined gangs based on illegal activities (e.g., drug sales and
distributions) and descriptors (e.g., tattoos; M. W. Klein & Maxson, 2006),
whereas others emphasized certain defining features, such as a shared identity
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

and solidarity and identified territory (Esbensen et al., 2001; see O’Brien,
Daffern, Chu, & Thomas, 2013, for a review).
In 2013, 12% of public school students nationwide (ages 12–18)
reported that gangs were present at their school, a decrease from 18% in
2011 (Zhang et al., 2016). A higher percentage of students attending urban
schools reported a gang presence than did those in suburban schools (18% vs.
11%, respectively; Zhang et al., 2016). Although the prevalence of gangs has
diminished over the years, the presence of youth gangs in schools can increase
the likelihood of school violence and student aggression, adversely affecting
the school climate (Forber-Pratt, Aragon, & Espelage, 2014; Foster, Grigsby,
Unger, & Sussman, 2015; Laub & Lauritsen, 1998). It is not clear whether
gangs are indeed a direct cause of victimization in schools, although a strong
correlation between gang presence and firearms and drugs in schools has been
found (Howell & Lynch, 2000). It is also possible that gang affiliation might
be a type of self-protection employed by youth in response to a threatening
school climate (Howell & Lynch, 2000). Despite a number of initiatives for
gang prevention at the local, state, and federal levels (e.g., Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009), training and recommendations
for school professionals working with students who are at risk of gang affilia-
tion are limited (Brandt, Sidway, Dvorsky, & Weist, 2013).

MICROAGGRESSIONS IN SCHOOL

Microaggressions, which are conceptualized as verbal, behavioral,

and environmental indignities that convey subtle or blatant forms of deni-
grating messages (Nadal, 2010; Sue et al., 2007), have been the focus of
recent scholarship. Research on microaggressions has been found in social
psychology and counseling psychology, and several works have also focused
on microaggressions in educational settings, primarily in higher education
(e.g., Minikel-Lacocque, 2013; Woodford, Howell, Kulick, & Silverschanz,
2013). However, a limited number of studies have examined experiences of
students in K–12 settings in microaggressions (Allen, 2010).

52       espelage and hong

 For students of minority status, such as racial minorities and sexual
minorities, microaggressions are pervasive, wide-ranging problems in their
school. According to the 2013 National School Climate Survey con-
ducted by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, about 64.5%
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students in secondary
schools nationwide reported hearing students making derogatory comments
(e.g., “faggot”), and 74% heard gay used in a negative way in school often or
frequently (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Although this was a
convenient sample, a significant percentage of LGBT high school students
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

who were recruited through LGBT youth-serving groups and organizations

and social media sites reported hearing homophobic comments. Studies
exploring racial microaggressions in K–12 schools reported that microaggres-
sions experienced by racial minority students ranged from blatant forms (e.g.,
receiving more punishments than did their peers of other races; Lewis, Butler,
Bonner, & Joubert, 2010) to subtle forms (e.g., teachers’ unwillingness to
learn the student’s name [Kohli & Solorzano, 2012] and reinforcement of
English dominance in the school system [Huber, 2011]).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Scholars have utilized many theoretical frameworks to highlight the

importance of understanding why certain individuals and groups are more
prone to engage in school violence than are others. No one theory or para-
digm can identify the causes of school violence. Providing a cohesive, multi-
faceted theoretical framework for understanding school violence is a daunting
task. However, several theories highlight intrapsychic attributes and behav-
iors of adolescents and social factors and structures linked to school violence
(Cavanaugh, 2012): social–ecological framework, social control theory,
social bonding theory, and social disorganization theory.

Social–Ecological Framework

Past scholarship on school violence has investigated several correlates

and antecedents that increase children’s and adolescents’ risk of violence in
school. In particular, individual and sociodemographic correlates, such as age
and sex differences and psychosocial factors, have been examined extensively
to enhance our understanding of why certain children are more prone to vio-
lence or victimization (e.g., Carlyle & Steinman, 2007; Danner & Carmody,
2001; McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002). However, scholars over
the years have recognized that violent behavior in school represents a com-
plex interplay between the individual or groups of individuals and their

school climate, bullying, and school violence      53

 surrounding contexts, such as home and school, and the social–ecological
framework has been applied to enhance our understanding of school bullying
and school violence (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009; Espelage, 2014). Guided
by Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) pioneering ecological paradigm, the social–
ecological framework proposes that school violence is a phenomenon that
is reciprocally shaped by a combination of individual, familial, school, peer
group, community, and societal contexts.
The social–ecological framework also suggests that the influence of
the environment is important in understanding adolescent behavior and
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

for creating effective changes for the adolescent (Bronfenbrenner, 1977),

and one of the most influential environments for adolescents is the school
(Eccles et al., 1993). Moreover, integrating intervention guided by the social–
ecological framework can assist in identification of interpersonal and organiza-
tional aspects of a school climate that can enhance school safety and improve
psycho­social well-being for adolescents (Waters, Cross, & Runions, 2009).

Social Control Theory

Another guiding theoretical approach to explain adolescent misconduct,

delinquency, and violence in school is the social control theory (Booth,
Farrell, & Varano, 2008; D. C. Gottfredson, 2001; Payne, 2008). Control
theory explains why people obey rules and how behavior conforms to what is
generally expected in society (Kempf-Leonard & Morris, 2017). The under-
lying view of human nature includes the concept of free will, which gives
the offenders the capacity of choice and responsibility for their behavior
(Kempf-Leonard & Morris, 2017). According to the earlier social control
theory by Hirschi (1969), crime and deviance are considered to be predict-
able behaviors, and conformity is achieved through a process by which people
are socialized to adhere to rules. Hirschi (1969) also contended that confor-
mity is most likely when an individual has strong social bonds to conven-
tional institutions, such as home and school. For adolescents, schools are one
major institution of social control, and given the availability of resources and
authority, schools are well organized and equipped to provide social control
(Guo, Roettger, & Cai, 2008), and adolescents are less likely to engage in
delinquent behaviors when they have strong bonds with school (Stewart,
2003). As expected, school climate and school policy that are perceived as
disorderly and unstructured are found to be strong predictors of students feel-
ing unsafe in their school environment (see Astor, Benbenishty, Vinokur, &
Zeira, 2006; Hong et al., 2016). Hong and colleagues (2016) found from a
nationwide sample of immigrant youth that youth report feeling that their
school climate is unsafe when school is perceived as disorderly, as character-
ized by criminal and delinquent activities.

54       espelage and hong

 Self-Control Theory

Self-control theory was proposed by Michael Gottfredson and Travis

Hirschi (1990) and is recognized as a widely examined perspective in the field
of criminology (M. Gottfredson, 2017). The focus is on individual differences
in attention to the consequences of one’s action, and those who learn to exer-
cise self-control early will be less likely to be involved in crime, delinquency,
and other problems (e.g., substance use, bullying; M. Gottfredson, 2017).
The self-control theory also purports that children develop self-control by
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

age 7 or 8, and those with low levels of self-control are more predisposed to
displaying delinquent and violent behaviors, which is likely to continue into
later life (M. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Also, according to this theory,
individuals with low self-control find it difficult to inhibit gratification and
tend to act impulsively, making them risk-takers and putting themselves in
situations that elevate their likelihood of involvement in violence and vic-
timization. In M. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), self-control is related to
concepts such as self-regulation and impulsivity, and most delinquent acts
can be seen as a pursuit of immediate and easy gratification and momentary
pleasure. Thus, those with low self-control are most likely to act on delin-
quent behaviors (M. Gottfredson, 2017). Numerous studies support the self-
control theory by empirically documenting that involvement in bullying in
school and cyberbullying are consequences of low self-control (e.g., Moon &
Alarid, 2015; Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Vazsonyi, Machackova, Sevcikova,
Smahel, & Cerna, 2012). Bullying, according to self-control theory, is an act
that provides some immediate gratification for the perpetrator (e.g., pleasure)
but has the possibility of detrimental outcomes to the perpetrator or others
(e.g., victims; M. Gottfredson, 2017).

Social Bonding Theory

In contrast, violent behavior is more likely to occur when an individu-

al’s bond to social institutions (e.g., school) has not been developed (Hirschi,
1969). Hirschi (1969), who was interested in exploring what inhibits ado-
lescents from committing delinquent and violent acts, also developed the
social bonding theory. This theory postulated that when adolescents have
strong bonds with their parents, peers, and teachers, they are less likely to
commit such acts. Hirschi (1969) identified four major components of social
bonding: (a) commitment to conventional goals (one’s level of investment
in aspirations and acceptance of legitimate means of achieving these goals),
(b) attachment to prosocial others (affective ties to others), (c) involvement
in conventional activities (participation that leads to socially valued suc-
cess), and (d) belief in conventional rules (whether one endorses the moral

school climate, bullying, and school violence      55

 validity of social rules; Stewart, 2003). In addition, internalization of norms,
conscience, or superego lies in an individual’s bonds with others (Hirschi,
1969; Welsh, 2000). For adolescents, primary institutions such as schools
and school climate can create opportunities for social bonding (or failure
to bond; Welsh, 2000), as schools also create informal social control, and
strong bonds to such institutions can produce conforming (i.e., law abiding)
behavior and desistance to violence when strong and deviant and violent
behavior when weak. School bonding has been found to be negatively asso-
ciated with risk of school violence, as documented in several empirical studies
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

(Cunningham, 2007; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007).

Social Disorganization Theory

Social disorganization theorists generally argue that an individual’s

physical and social environments primarily determine behavioral choice,
and location is a significant predictor of delinquent and deviant behav-
iors and activities. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942) also proposed
that delinquent behavior is not necessarily an individual characteristic
(e.g., psycho­pathology); rather, it is a response to abysmal conditions in the
community—for instance, poverty, limited resources, and dilapidated housing.
Shaw and McKay (1942) further postulated that disadvantaged communities
are often lacking in community-based control and collective efficacy, which
subsequently predisposes adolescents to deviant values and behaviors.
Recognizing the significance of the social disorganization theory, one
study also examined whether certain school-level indicators (e.g., school
climate) of disorder might be important predictors of bullying and school
violence. Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan (2009), who conducted a study
using a 22,178-student sample from 95 elementary and middle schools,
reported that school-level indicators of disorder (e.g., student–teacher ratio,
concentration of student poverty, suspension rate, and student mobility)
significantly predicted bullying behaviors. Considering that schools are
embedded in the community, it is not surprising that exposure to violence
and disorganization in the community has been associated with bullying,
peer rejection, and aggression among youth in schools (Low & Espelage,
2014; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). For instance, Low and Espelage (2014)
reported in a sample of 1,232 fifth- through seventh graders that commu-
nity violence exposure was associated with maladaptive behavior, especially
bullying perpetration. It is also important to note, however, that despite
daily occurrence of violence, schools located in violent and disorganized
communities can still succeed if they provide programs that address harmful
outcomes of community violence exposure (e.g., school-to-prison pipeline;
Mayer & Furlong, 2010).

56       espelage and hong

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL CLIMATE MODEL

Considerable efforts have been made to create consistency in the defi-

nition and assessment of school climate in order to collect and inform data
across U.S. school districts. To this end, the U.S. Department of Education’s
Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS) developed a model of school
climate along with school climate surveys through the NCES. School dis-
tricts have no-cost access to the U.S. Department of Education School
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Climate Surveys (EDSCLS) as well as a platform for collecting and summa-

rizing their data (see https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/edscls). Surveys
were developed for students, instructional staff, noninstructional staff, and
parents. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s model, school cli-
mate consists of three broad domains: engagement, safety, and environment
(U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2010). Engagement
includes relationships between and among students, teachers, and fami-
lies and between schools and the broader community, as well as respect
for diversity and school participation. Safety includes the emotional and
physical safety of the school community as well as avoidance of substance
use. Environment includes the physical, academic, and disciplinary envi-
ronment as well as the availability of school-based health supports. These
three domains consist of 13 unique topical areas that reflect areas of school
climate that have consistently been identified in the research literature as
critical components of school safety. Considerable psychometric analyses
have been conducted on these surveys, and the construct validity of these
13 topical areas was supported through differential item functioning analyses
and confirmatory factor analysis (NCES, 2015).

Engagement

Engagement includes several components of school connectedness,

such as the amount of effort students expend in their learning, sense of
belonging, and emotional involvement with the school. In the EDSCLS,
three topics covered in the engagement domain include (a) cultural and lin-
guistic competence, which involves the degree to which students and fami-
lies from diverse backgrounds feel welcome and connected to their school;
(b) positive relationships between students, adults, and peers, which are char-
acterized by affirmative social interactions, leading to a nurturing environment
of trust and support; and (c) participation, which encompasses all of students’
efforts in school, ranging from class participation to extracurricular activities.
Strong interconnectedness among schoolteachers and staff, students, families,
and school can contribute to a positive climate (Cohen, 2013).

school climate, bullying, and school violence      57

 Safety

Emotional and physical safety are fundamental characteristics of effec-

tive and welcoming schools (Mayer & Furlong, 2010). Safety issues at school
are associated with youth and staff reports of victimization, increases in
truancy, lower levels of school engagement and achievement, problematic
behaviors, and lower graduation rates. In the EDSCLS, the safety domain
includes (a) emotional safety, (b) physical safety, (c) bullying, (d) substance
use in the school, and (e) emergency readiness and management.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Environment

Schools that are aesthetically attractive with teachers who possess

strong classroom management skills tend to be characterized as having posi-
tive school environments. Furthermore, when the instructional practices are
rigorous and inclusive, students are more likely to succeed academically and
socially. Also, schools that pay attention to the physical and mental health
of their staff and students are perceived to be more positive. Clear, fair disci-
plinary policies are also essential for promoting strong positive relationships
among school staff and students (Hamre & Pianta, 2005). In the EDSCLS,
the environment domain comprises five topics: (a) physical environment,
(b) instructional environment, (c) physical health, (d) mental health, and
(e) disciplinary approach.

VIOLENCE PREVENTION THROUGH

SCHOOL CLIMATE IMPROVEMENT

Comprehensive schoolwide efforts to prevent aggression, bullying, and

victimization are predicated on the assumption that reducing these behaviors
must include working with all stakeholders in the school, including teachers,
students, and parents (Espelage, 2014; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Drawing
from the ecological model of child development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977),
Espelage (2015) noted that the school environment is an important micro-
system that influences how students view bullying and aggression, how adult
role models correlate with student behavior, and how school-level norms and
policies correlate with these student behaviors. Studies consistently report
that negative school environmental factors (e.g., policies, staff reactions to
bullying) can lead to an increase in the frequency of bullying, aggression,
and victimization and reduce the likelihood of students feeling safe in their
school (Espelage et al., 2000; Goldweber et al., 2013). Thus, it is impera-
tive that schools collect comprehensive school climate data from students,

58       espelage and hong

 teachers, staff, parents, and other stakeholders (see Chapter 8 in this volume
for additional information regarding the use of data to inform prevention and
intervention planning and efforts). These data need to be collected on an
annual basis to understand how things are improving in certain domains and
what challenges persist. As schools cannot address each area of concern all
at once, a multiyear school improvement plan that targets immediate, inter-
mediate, and long-term goals is needed. For example, if the school climate
assessment determines that teachers and staff see aggression as a problem in
their school because students are not willing to report bullying or victimiza-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

tion, immediate attention should be paid to reporting of bullying incidents.

Then, instituting a bystander intervention program in addition to establish-
ing a reporting system would be appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Although much has been learned about certain types of school vio-
lence, especially bullying, more research is needed to understand other forms
of school violence, including sexual harassment experiences in schools and
violence against teachers. Federal law requires sexual harassment prevention
efforts in K–12 settings; however, very little research is being done with stu-
dent populations to address the school-based gender-based harassment and
homophobic name-calling that many experience. Also, much of the research
on violence against teachers or educators has been conducted outside of the
United States, and even the studies conducted in the United States have
focused solely on the rates and types of violence teachers experience, virtually
ignoring the contextual variables that drive this violence. Finally, although
a positive school climate has been associated with lower rates of school vio-
lence, bullying, and other forms of aggression, there is a lack of large-scale
school-based studies on the efficacy of school climate improvement plans or
processes using a longitudinal research design. Thus, addressing the gaps in
the extant literature on school violence is a necessary first step to effectively
put school safety programs and policies in place.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

School violence, bullying, sexual harassment, and other forms of aggres-

sion and violence are common in many U.S. schools; however, these phe-
nomena can be prevented. In order to address these overlapping issues, it
is important to understand how each develops and is maintained through
the dynamics of the classrooms, student–teacher relationships, and the larger

school climate, bullying, and school violence      59

 school climate and even more so how they are impacted by community
dynamics and district policies. Numerous theories (e.g., social–ecological,
social control, self-control, social bonding, and social disorganization) were
presented here, all of which point to the importance of youth having strong
relationships or bonds with individuals across multiple contexts, including
families, schools, and communities. Regardless of the specific violence pre-
vention approach adopted by schools, the primary focus must be promoting
school connectedness for students and school staff. However, the only way
to understand what is creating challenges for students and school staff is to
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

assess all stakeholders’ perceptions of the school environment. The OSHS,

with NCES, offers a comprehensive and user-friendly set of school climate
surveys. These surveys assess three critical domains of school climate: engage-
ment, safety, and environment. They also cover a wide range of domains
that have been associated with greater positive school climate. Surveys are
cost-free to school districts, and reports are generated immediately. To maxi-
mize the utility of these data, schools should create a school climate com-
mittee (e.g., paraprofessionals, students, cafeteria workers) that is charged to
coordinate the data collection (all electronically), generate reports from the
Department of Education’s website, and then integrate the results into their
own school improvement plans.

REFERENCES

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Fozdar, F., Ala’i, K., Earnest, J., & Afari, E. (2016).
Students’ perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resil-
ience and identity. Improving Schools, 19(1), 5–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1365480215612616
Allen, Q. (2010). Racial microaggressions: The schooling experiences of Black
middle-class males in Arizona’s secondary schools. Journal of African American
Males in Education, 1, 125–143.
Argyris, C. (1958). Some problems in conceptualizing organizational climate: A case
study of a bank. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 501–520. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/2390797
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Vinokur, A. D., & Zeira, A. (2006). Arab and Jewish
elementary school students’ perceptions of fear and school violence: Under-
standing the influence of school context. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76, 91–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X37307
Bandyopadhyay, S., Cornell, D. G., & Konold, T. R. (2009). Validity of three school
climate scales to assess bullying, aggressive attitudes, and help seeking. School
Psychology Review, 38, 338–355.
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., &
Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of

60       espelage and hong

 adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adoles­
cence, 38, 101–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1
Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., Roziner, I., & Wrabel, S. L. (2016). Testing the causal
links between school climate, school violence, and school academic perfor-
mance: A cross-lagged panel autoregressive model. Educational Researcher, 45,
197–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16644603
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G.
(2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predic-
tors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 357.e9–357.e18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.jadohealth.2006.10.013
Booth, J., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. (2008). Social control, serious delinquency, and
risky behavior: A gendered analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 423–456. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128707306121
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2009). A social disorganiza-
tion perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors: The influence of
school context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 204–220. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9240-1
Brandt, N. E., Sidway, E., Dvorsky, M., & Weist, M. D. (2013). Culturally responsive
strategies to address youth gangs in schools. In C. S. Clauss-Ehlers, Z. N. Serpell,
& M. D. Weist (Eds.), Handbook of culturally responsive school mental health:
Advancing research, training, practice, and policy (pp. 177–186). New York, NY:
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4948-5_13
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human develop­
ment. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.32.7.513
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P. K.,
& Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school
achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301–318. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312015002301
Brunstein Klomek, A., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould,
M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40–49. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18
Carlyle, K. E., & Steinman, K. J. (2007). Demographic differences in the prevalence,
co-occurrence, and correlates of adolescent bullying at school. The Journal of
School Health, 77, 623–629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00242.x
Cavanaugh, M. M. (2012). Theories of violence: Social science perspective. Journal
of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 607–618. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10911359.2011.598757
Chen, J. K., & Astor, R. A. (2009). Students’ report of violence against teachers
in Taiwanese schools. Journal of School Violence, 8, 2–17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15388220802067680

school climate, bullying, and school violence      61

 Child Trends Databank. (2014). High school students carrying weapons. Retrieved from
http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=high-school-students-carrying-weapons
Cohen, J. (2013). Effective bully prevention efforts and school climate reform.
In M. Masiello & D. Schroeder (Eds.), A public health approach to bullying
prevention (pp. 23–56). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate:
Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111,
180–213.
Cunningham, N. J. (2007). Level of bonding to school and perception of the school
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

environment by bullies, victims, and bully victims. The Journal of Early Adoles­
cence, 27, 457–478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431607302940
Danner, M. J. E., & Carmody, D. C. (2001). Missing gender in cases of infamous
school violence: Investigating research and media explanations. Justice Quarterly,
18, 87–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820100094831
Decker, S. H., Melde, C., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). What do we know about gangs
and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly, 30, 369–402.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.732101
Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2007). Student violence against teachers: Teachers’ well-
being and the belief in a just world. European Psychologist, 12, 253–260. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.253
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C.,
& Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage–
environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families.
American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive school climate and
student willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of
School Psychology, 48, 533–553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.07.001
Esbensen, F.-A., Winfree, L. T., Jr., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and
definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime &
Delinquency, 47, 105–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047001005
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon,
S. D., . . . Reynolds, C. R. (2013). Understanding and preventing violence
directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice,
and policy agenda. American Psychologist, 68, 75–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0031307
Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression,
& victimization. Theory into Practice, 53, 257–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00405841.2014.947216
Espelage, D. L. (2015). Emerging issues in school bullying research & prevention
science. In E. T. Emmer & E. Sabornie (Eds.), Handbook of classroom manage­
ment: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 76–93). New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.

62       espelage and hong

 Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context
of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling & Develop­
ment, 78, 326–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x
Espelage, D. L., Hong, J. S., Rinehart, S., & Doshi, N. (2016). Understanding types,
locations, & perpetrators of peer-to-peer sexual harassment in U.S. middle
schools: A focus on sex, racial, and grade differences. Children and Youth Services
Review, 71, 174–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.11.010
Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Low, S. K. (2014). Teacher and staff perceptions
of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 29,

287–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000072
Forber-Pratt, A. J., Aragon, S. R., & Espelage, D. L. (2014). The influence of gang
presence on victimization in one middle school environment. Psychology of
Violence, 4(1), 8–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031835
Foster, M., Grigsby, T. J., Unger, J. B., & Sussman, S. (2015). Associations between
gun violence exposure, gang associations, and youth aggression: Implications
for prevention and intervention programs. Journal of Criminology, 2015, 1–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/963750
Gage, N. A., Prykanowski, D. A., & Larson, A. (2014). School climate and bullying
victimization: A latent class growth model analysis. School Psychology Quarterly,
29, 256–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000064
Giovazolias, T., Kourkoutas, E., Mitsopoulou, E., & Georgiadi, M. (2010). The
relationship between perceived school climate and the prevalence of bully-
ing behavior in Greek schools: Implications for preventive inclusive strategies.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 2208–2215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.sbspro.2010.07.437
Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D.
(2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health
and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and U.S. Department of Education.
Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bully­ing,
psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. JAMA
Pediatrics, 159, 1026–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026
Goldweber, A., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining associations
between race, urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 42, 206–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9843-y
Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2005).
School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study
of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 42, 412–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427804271931

school climate, bullying, and school violence      63

 Gottfredson, M. (2017). Self-control theory and crime. In H. Pontell & A. Wahl
(Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.252
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gower, A. L., McMorris, B. J., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2015). School-level contextual
predictors of bullying and harassment experiences among adolescents. Social Sci­
ence & Medicine, 147, 47–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.036
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2012). Teacher safety and authoritative school
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

climate in high schools. American Journal of Education, 118, 1–25. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1086/666362
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T.-H., & Huang, F. (2010).
Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower
bullying and victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 483–496.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018562
Griffith, J. (1995). An empirical examination of a model of social climate in elemen-
tary school. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 97–117. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01973533.1995.9646134
Guo, G., Roettger, M. E., & Cai, T. (2008). The integration of genetic propen-
sities into social-control models of delinquency and violence among male
youths. American Sociological Review, 73, 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/
000312240807300402
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional sup-
port in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of
school failure? Child Development, 76, 949–967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Birkett, M., Van Wagenen, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). Pro-
tective school climates and reduced risk for suicide ideation in sexual minor-
ity youths. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 279–286. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2105/AJPH.2013.301508
Hill, C., & Kearl, H. (2011). Crossing the line: Sexual harassment at school. Washington,
DC: American Association of University Women.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hong, J. S., Merrin, G. J., Crosby, S., Jozefowicz, D. M., Lee, J. M., & Allen-Meares, P.
(2016). Individual and contextual factors associated with immigrant youth
feeling unsafe in school: A social-ecological analysis. Journal of Immigrant and
Minority Health, 18, 996–1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0242-9
Howell, J. C., & Lynch, J. (2000, August). Youth gangs in schools. Juvenile Justice
Bulletin: Youth Gang Series. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Jus-
tice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/183015.pdf

64       espelage and hong

 Huber, L. P. (2011). Discourses of racist nativism in California public education:
English dominance as racist nativist microaggressions. Educational Studies:
A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 47, 379–401. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2011.589301
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adoles-
cents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.
Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Kawkins, J., Harris, W. A., . . .
Zaza, S. (2014). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(4), 1–168. Retrieved from http://
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6304.pdf
Kempf-Leonard, K., & Morris, N. A. (2017). Social control theory. In Oxford Biblio­
graphies Online. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/
document/obo-9780195396607/obo-9780195396607-0091.xml
Khoury-Kassabri, M., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2009). Middle Eastern ado-
lescents’ perpetration of school violence against peers and teachers: A cross-
cultural and ecological analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 159–182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260508315777
Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between bullying, school
climate, and student risk behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27, 154–169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029350
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New 
York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780195163445.001.0001
Kohli, R., & Solorzano, D. G. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names! Racial
microaggressions and the K–12 classroom. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15,
441–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.674026
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013
National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans­
gender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of
negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role
of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12, 45–63. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
Laub, J. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1998). The interdependence of school violence with
neighborhood and family conditions. In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R.
Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A new perspective (pp. 127–155).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, C. H., & Song, J. (2012). Functions of parental involvement and effects of
school climate on bullying behaviors among South Korean middle school
students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2437–2464. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0886260511433508

school climate, bullying, and school violence      65

 Lewis, C. W., Butler, B. R., Bonner, F. L., & Joubert, M. (2010). African Ameri-
can male discipline patterns and school district responses resulting impact on
academic achievement: Implications for urban educators and policy makers.
Journal of African American Males in Education, 1, 8–25.
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K. D. (2006). Examining school connectedness
as a mediator of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16,
491–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00504.x
Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2014). Conduits from community violence exposure to peer
aggression and victimization: Contributions of parental monitoring, impulsivity,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

and deviancy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 221–231. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/a0035207
Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Eisenberg, N., Thartori, E., Pastorelli, C., Uribe Tirado, L. M.,
Gerbino, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2017). Longitudinal relations among positivity,
perceived positive school climate, and prosocial behavior in Colombian adoles-
cents. Child Development, 88, 1100–1114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12863
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Mayer, M. J., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). How safe are our schools? Educational
Researcher, 39, 16–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357617
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school
climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3),
130–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800301
McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A., Espelage, D. L., Reddy, L. A., Rose, C., Lane, K., . . .
& Brown, V. (2014). Violence directed against teachers: Results from a national
survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 753–766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21777
McMaster, L. E., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M. (2002). Peer to peer sexual
harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Development and
Psychopathology, 14, 91–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579402001050
Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2013). Racism, college, and the power of words: Racial micro-
aggressions reconsidered. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 432–465.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831212468048
Moon, B., & Alarid, L. F. (2015). School bullying, low self-control, and opportu-
nity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 839–856. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260514536281
Naber, P. A., May, D. C., Decker, S. H., Minor, K. I., & Wells, J. B. (2006). Are
there gangs in schools? It depends on whom you ask. Journal of School Violence,
5, 53–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v05n02_05
Nadal, K. (2010). Gender microaggressions and women: Implications for therapy.
In M. Paludi (Ed.), Feminism and women’s rights worldwide (pp. 155–175). Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., &
Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and

66       espelage and hong

 association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285, 2094–2100. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2015, August). Appendix D:
EDSCLS pilot test 2015 report. Washington, DC: NCES. Retrieved from http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=61438201
Nickerson, A. B., Singleton, D., Schnurr, B., & Collen, M. H. (2014). Perceptions
of school climate as a function of bullying involvement. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 30(2), 157–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2014.888530
O’Brien, K., Daffern, M., Chu, C. M., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2013). Youth gang
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

affiliation, violence, and criminal activities: A review of motivational, risk,

and protective factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 417–425. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.05.001
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2009). OJJDP’s comprehen­
sive gang model: A guide to assessing your community’s youth gang problem. Wash-
ington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program:
Implementation and evaluation over two decades. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M.
Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An interna­
tional perspective (pp. 377–402). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ormerod, A. J., Collinsworth, L. L., & Perry, L. A. (2008). Critical climate: Rela-
tions among sexual harassment, climate, and outcomes for high school girls
and boys. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(2), 113–125. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00417.x
Payne, A. A. (2008). A multilevel analysis of the relationships among communal
school organization, student bonding, and delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 45, 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427808322621
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Bullying, victimization, and sexual harassment dur-
ing the transition to middle school. Educational Psychologist, 37, 151–163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3703_2
Pyrooz, D. C., & Sweeten, G. (2015). Gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years
in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 414–419. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.11.018
Reddy, L. A., Espelage, D., McMahon, S. D., Anderman, E. M., Lane, K. L., Brown,
V. E., . . . Kanrich, J. (2013). Violence against teachers: Case studies from
the APA task force. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1,
231–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.837019
Rinehart, S. J., & Espelage, D. L. (2016). A multilevel analysis of school climate, homo­
phobic name-calling, and sexual harassment victimization/perpetration among
middle school youth. Psychology of Violence, 6, 213–222. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0039095
Schnoll, J. S., Connolly, J., Josephson, W. J., Pepler, D., & Simkins-Strong, E. (2015).
Same- and cross-gender sexual harassment victimization in middle school:

school climate, bullying, and school violence      67

 A developmental-contextual perspective. Journal of School Violence, 14, 196–216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906311
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s
social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion
regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
670–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.670
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effective-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

ness of whole school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research.

School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adoles-
cent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations:
Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 41, 283–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009
Stewart, E. A. (2003). School social bonds, school climate, and school mis­
behavior: A multilevel analysis. Justice Quarterly, 20, 575–604. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/07418820300095621
Stockard, J., & Mayberry, M. (1992). Effective educational environments. Newbury
Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M.,
Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life:
Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271–286. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of
school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483907
Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). Bullying, self-control, and ADHD.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 129–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260502238731
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2010, October). Dear col­
league letter: Harassment and bullying. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf
Vazsonyi, A. T., Machackova, H., Sevcikova, A., Smahel, D., & Cerna, A. (2012).
Cyberbullying in context: Direct and indirect effects by low self-control across
25 European countries. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 210–227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.644919
Waters, S. K., Cross, D. S., & Runions, K. (2009). Social and ecological struc-
tures supporting adolescent connectedness to school: A theoretical model.
The Journal of School Health, 79, 516–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2009.00443.x

68       espelage and hong

 Way, N., Reddy, R., & Rhodes, J. (2007). Students’ perceptions of school climate
during the middle school years: Associations with trajectories of psychologi-
cal and behavioral adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40,
194–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9143-y
Welsh, W. (2000). The effects of school climate on school disorder. The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 88–107. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271620056700107
West Ed Health and Development Program for the California Department of Edu-
cation. (2012). California Healthy Kids Survey, 2010–2011. Retrieved from
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

http://chks.wested.org/reports
Wienke Totura, C. M. W., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd, R., Divine,
K. P., Dunham, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Bullying and victimization
among boys and girls in middle school: The influence of perceived family
and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 571–609. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431608324190
Wilson, C. M., Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (2011). Violence against teachers:
Prevalence and consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2353–2371.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383027
Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness
and relationships with aggression and victimization. The Journal of School
Health, 74, 293–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08286.x
Woodford, M. R., Howell, M. L., Kulick, A., & Silverschanz, P. (2013). “That’s
so gay”: Heterosexual male undergraduates and the perpetuation of sexual
orientation microaggressions on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
28, 416–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512454719
Yun, I., & Hwang, E. (2011). A study of occasional and intensive weapon carrying
among adolescents using a nationally representative sample. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 9, 366–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1541204011400451
Zhang, A., Musu-Gillette, L., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2016). Indicators of school crime
and safety: 2015 (NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016079.pdf
Zullig, K. J., Koopman, T. M., Patton, J. M., & Ubbes, V. A. (2010). School cli-
mate: Historical review, instrument development, and school assessment. Jour­
nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 139–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0734282909344205

school climate, bullying, and school violence      69