Promoting Classroom Climate and Why it Matters in Anti-Hate Speech Prevention Programs: A HateLess Evaluation Study

Abstract

Inclusive and supportive classroom environments are essential, particularly during political and societal crises such as wars, disinformation, polarization, and rising populism and extremism. While existing research underscores the importance of such environments, few studies comprehensively examine the impact of anti-hate speech prevention programs on classroom dynamics and students’ social development. This study addressed this gap by investigating the direct and indirect effects of the HateLess anti-hate speech prevention program on inclusive classroom climate, classroom cohesion, empathy, and self-efficacy among adolescents. A sample of 820 adolescents aged 12 to 16 years (M = 13.27, SD = 1.04) from 11 German schools was divided into an intervention group (n = 567), who participated in the 1-week program, and a control group (n = 253). Multilevel mediation analyses revealed that, at T2 (1 month after the intervention), the intervention group reported significantly higher levels of inclusive classroom climate, cohesion, empathy, and self-efficacy than the control group. In addition, inclusive classroom climate and cohesion were positively associated with empathy and self-efficacy, and significant indirect effects indicated that the intervention’s impact on empathy and self-efficacy was partially mediated through classroom climate and cohesion. These findings highlight the effectiveness of HateLess in fostering inclusive classroom environments and suggest integrating such interventions into school curricula to cultivate supportive learning spaces that empower adolescents to address hate speech effectively.

Keywords

hate speech prevention adolescents school climate inclusion empathy self-efficacy

Introduction

Schools are an important developmental context during adolescence, serving as a hub where students encounter their own culture and that of their classmates, socialize with peers, express and challenge their views, and develop social skills essential for their future (Roeser et al., 2024). Students constantly negotiate their identities in this environment while interacting with peers from various cultural and social backgrounds. Hence, schools must be safe and inclusive for all young people (UNESCO, 2016). However, schools reflect broader economic, societal, and political tensions in times of crisis (e.g., Russia’s war in Ukraine), leading to increased conflicts and deteriorating cohesion. One notable issue arising from these current challenges is the increase of hate speech, which can create unsafe and inequitable living and learning environments in schools and negatively impact young people’s well-being (United Nations, 2023; Wachs et al., 2022a). Hate speech can be defined as any form of expression that seeks to humiliate people based on group characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation) (Kansok-Dusche et al., 2023) and is a prevalent phenomenon in German schools (Castellanos et al., 2023). Despite its widespread occurence, many teachers feel ill-equipped to address hate speech effectively and cite a lack of access to evidence-based prevention programs (Krause et al., 2023; Seemann-Herz et al., 2022).

More recently, the evaluation of the “HateLess. Together against Hatred” program has shown promise in reducing adolescents’ involvement in hate speech, increasing empathy and self-efficacy (Wachs, 2023b, 2024b; Krause & Wachs, 2024). Questions remain, however, about the mechanisms by which the HateLess achieves increases in empathy and self-efficacy. Given the significance of school environments in positive youth development and success for school-based prevention programs (Low & Van Ryzin, 2014; Wang et al., 2020), the present study, therefore, further examines a) whether participation in HateLess has a positive effect on the classroom climate and b) whether participation in this program indirectly boosts empathy and self-efficacy by strengthening classroom climate.

Description of the HateLess Prevention Program

“HateLess. Together against Hatred” (from here on referred to as HateLess) is a prevention program tailored for adolescents in grades 7 through 9. HateLess is a multilevel program informed by Socio-Ecological Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), integrating activities that develop skills across various levels. At the individual level, it promotes practical skills for intervening in hate speech. At the classroom level, it aims to encourage collaboration to develop anti-hate speech rules and social norms. At the school level, it creates school-wide activities designed to increase awareness of hate speech. At the community level, it involves delivering presentations during parent/guardian nights to extend the program’s impact beyond the school. HateLess employs multiple approaches to tackle hate speech, including knowledge-based interventions (e.g., educating adolescents about hate speech and differences to free speech), intergroup contact interventions (e.g., reading stories and watching films about minority group members and their experiences with hate speech), and individual skill development (e.g., training in empathy, self-efficacy, and collaboration).

HateLess comprises five modules, each delivered over a school week, with six school hours (each lasting 45 min) in a single school day per module. HateLess is designed to prevent online and offline hate speech among adolescents. The program begins with Module 1, which lays the foundational understanding of hate speech. This module includes an introductory session to engage students and prepare them for the topic. The first module helps students identify and comprehend the various forms of hate speech, emphasizing the importance of recognizing it in different contexts. The module then delves into the nuances between hate speech and free speech, encouraging students to analyze the context and intent behind speech acts critically.

Module 2 explores the roots of hate speech. It begins by examining the psychological, social, and cultural factors that drive individuals to engage in hate speech, helping students understand the complex motivations behind such behavior. The module also discusses societal norms and conceptions of normality, illustrating how these standards can perpetuate hate speech. Additionally, it addresses the role of digital mechanisms and online polarization in spreading and normalizing hate speech.

The third module shifts the focus to the consequences of hate speech. It addresses the personal impacts, such as emotional, psychological, and physical harm to individuals. Understanding these personal consequences underscores the severity of hate speech and its damaging effects. The module also examines the broader societal consequences, including social fragmentation, distrust, and conflict. By recognizing these impacts, students can appreciate the importance of combating hate speech. Furthermore, the module teaches coping strategies to help students build resilience and emotional strength in the face of hate speech.

In Module 4, the program presents practical strategies for dealing with hate speech. It begins by encouraging civil courage and active bystander intervention, empowering students to support victims and challenge hate speech perpetrators. This proactive approach fosters a supportive and protective environment. The module also promotes constructive and respectful ways of arguing and debating, emphasizing the value of healthy discourse. Finally, it includes a reflective session on the lessons learned throughout the module, aiming to build class solidarity and a cohesive environment committed to reducing hate speech.

The fifth module extends the focus to a school-wide approach, aiming to cultivate a hate-free school environment. It outlines comprehensive actions and policies that can be implemented across the school, involving collaboration between students, teachers, administrators, and the broader school community. This module emphasizes the importance of a united effort to create an inclusive and respectful culture within the school.

To enable schools to implement HateLess independently, the program was designed as a stand-alone prevention initiative that required no prior training for teachers. Instead, a comprehensive teacher manual was developed, including a step-by-step guide detailing each activity’s objectives, timing, methods, and learning goals. This approach ensures that schools can integrate the program into their curriculum without relying on external facilitators. To further support implementation, all program materials and resources are freely accessible on the HateLess website (www.hateless.de). This standardized yet flexible protocol enables schools to use HateLess without external support.

Previous HateLess Evaluation Studies

The current study builds on prior findings from two evaluation studies, which primarily focused on the intervention’s effects on adolescents’ involvement in hate speech. The first study focused on the effects of the HateLess program on adolescents’ empathy, self-efficacy, and offline counterspeech (Wachs et al., 2023b). More specifically, this study showed significant increases in offline counterspeech in the intervention group. This study also found that enhanced empathy and self-efficacy partially mediated these improvements in offline counterspeech. The second previous evaluation study examined online hate speech, specifically its perpetration, victimization, and counterspeech. Findings revealed that participation in HateLess significantly reduced online hate speech perpetration and victimization while increasing online counterspeech. These effects were also partially mediated by increased empathy and self-efficacy (Wachs et al., 2024b).

While the current study uses the same sample and overlapping measures (i.e., empathy and self-efficacy) as the previous two studies, it uniquely explores the potential direct effects of HateLess on classroom climate and its role as a mediator of the intervention effects on empathy and self-efficacy. Therefore, the current paper broadens the understanding of group dynamics and learning environments beyond the individual-level effects, which is relevant to understanding hate speech among adolescents (Wachs et al., 2024a).

Potential Effects of HateLess on the Classroom Climate

Classroom climate refers to a classroom’s overall atmosphere and quality of life, including interpersonal relationships, classroom management, the emotional environment, teaching and learning practices, and the physical environment (Loukas, 2007). In the present study, we focus on two facets of classroom climate, namely inclusive classroom climate and classroom cohesion. Though related (Schürer & van Ophuysen, 2022), both facets focus on different aspects of the classroom environment. While an inclusive classroom climate addresses individual student needs and experiences, classroom cohesion looks at group dynamics and collaborative behavior. In particular, an inclusive classroom climate ensures that all students feel valued, respected, and supported, celebrating diversity and promoting equity in participation. It involves fostering positive relationships and creating a safe environment where diverse needs are met. In contrast, classroom cohesion emphasizes the quality of student relationships and teamwork, highlighting solidarity, cooperation, and mutual support. It includes students working well together, supporting each other, and feeling a sense of belonging to a cohesive group with shared norms and values (Margas, 2023).

Previous research showed that in classrooms where students feel supported by their peers, more students defend victims of hate speech, and fewer students contribute actively to hate speech incidents (Ballaschk et al., 2021; Wachs et al., 2024a). In addition, classroom norms play a major role in understanding hate speech dynamics among adolescents (Wachs et al., 2022b). Hence, anti-hate speech programs should consider classroom climate a critical component in targeting hate speech in schools (United Nations, 2023).

Several actions during HateLess might positively influence the classroom climate. HateLess promotes understanding and respect for diversity, crucial components of an inclusive classroom climate. The modules educate students about the nature of hate speech, its roots, and its consequences, fostering a deep understanding of why it is harmful. This awareness encourages students to be more mindful of their language and actions, promoting respect for their peers’ diverse backgrounds and experiences.

Additionally, the program’s use of diverse protagonists helps students identify with characters who reflect the students’ varied social, cultural, and familial backgrounds, fostering empathy and reducing prejudices. By discussing diverse experiences and backgrounds through the program’s protagonists, students will likely develop a deeper appreciation for their peers’ differences, reducing biases and stereotypes. This awareness is crucial in creating a classroom environment where every student feels valued and respected.

HateLess actively involves students in creating anti-hate speech rules and social norms, which promotes a sense of ownership and collective responsibility. By working together on these initiatives, students develop stronger bonds and a greater sense of unity. The program’s collaborative nature encourages teamwork and mutual support, essential elements of classroom cohesion. In addition, the program includes practical activities (e.g., role-plays) that encourage civic courage and bystander intervention, which can strengthen the social fabric of the classroom as students support each other in standing against hate speech. Similar approaches have been found to be effective in increasing classroom climate in general (Donohoe, 2020; McGiboney, 2023). Besides these direct effects on classroom climate, HateLess might also influence the skills as well as the deployment of skills taught in anti-hate speech programs, such as empathy and self-efficacy, by creating positive learning environments.

Adolescents’ Personal Development Within Positive Classroom Environments

A positive classroom climate fosters student engagement, academic achievement, and social and emotional development, while an adverse climate can hinder learning and contribute to behavioral issues (Wang et al., 2020). Considering that students in the German schooling system typically stay in one classroom together for most of the school day, the significance of classroom climate is even more pronounced in the German context.

Empathy in adolescents is nurtured through positive relationships characterized by warm and supportive interactions within their social environments (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Although adult relationships contribute significantly to developing empathy in young people, a meta-analysis underscored the especially crucial role of peer relationships (Boele et al., 2019). Several ideas support the assumption that the classroom climate positively affects adolescents’ empathy development. First, a positive classroom climate often emphasizes emotional safety, where students feel secure expressing their thoughts and feelings. This environment encourages open communication and understanding of diverse perspectives, which is fundamental to developing empathy (Veldin et al., 2020). Second, classrooms promoting cooperative learning and teamwork can enhance empathetic behavior (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017; Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2019). When students work together on projects and activities, they learn to appreciate and understand each other’s viewpoints, strengths, and challenges. This collaborative spirit helps build a sense of community and mutual respect, which is essential to empathy (Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2022). Third, peers in a positive classroom climate often model empathetic behavior. When students demonstrate empathy through interactions, they provide a powerful example for their peers to emulate. Observing and experiencing empathy firsthand can reinforce its importance and encourage students to adopt similar behaviors (Miklikowska et al., 2022). Lastly, a positive classroom climate that values inclusivity and diversity can broaden students’ understanding and acceptance of different cultural and social backgrounds. This exposure helps dismantle stereotypes and prejudices, fostering a more empathetic attitude toward individuals who may be different from oneself (Fu et al., 2022). These ideas are also supported by hate speech research, indicating that classroom cohesion is related to adolescents’ empathy for victims of hate speech (Wachs et al., 2023a)

Like empathy, the development of self-efficacy is influenced by significant others, such as parents, siblings, teachers, and peers. During adolescence, peer acceptance and relationships are especially crucial for developing self-efficacy because peers have a significant role in adolescents’ socialization (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Adolescent peers provide each other opportunities to learn from one another and function as role models (Ruggeri et al., 2018). Classrooms, characterized by a positive climate, constitute a meaningful context to develop, exercise, and maintain the skills necessary to engage in self-efficacy (Hong et al., 2021; Zysberg & Schwabsky, 2021). First, a supportive classroom environment often encourages active participation and engagement in social interactions. When students feel comfortable and valued in their classroom, they are more likely to take risks, ask questions, and engage in discussions, all of which contribute to a sense of competence and self-efficacy (Monteiro et al., 2021). Second, a classroom that promotes collaboration allows students to experience success through group efforts. When students work together and achieve common goals, they develop a sense of collective efficacy, which can translate into individual self-efficacy as they recognize their contributions to the group’s success (Lent et al., 2006). Finally, in a positive classroom climate, students are more likely to receive emotional and social support from their peers. This support network can help students navigate challenges and setbacks, reinforcing their belief in overcoming obstacles and succeeding. Indeed, initial research found a positive link between a supportive classroom climate and students’ self-efficacy toward handling bullying (Sjögren et al., 2021). More recently, hate speech research revealed a positive association between classroom cohesion and self-efficacy in intervening in hate speech (Wachs et al., 2023a).

The Present Study

Schools are critical developmental environments where adolescents interact with diverse peers, negotiate their identities, and develop essential social and emotional skills. Among these dynamics, classroom climate is pivotal in shaping adolescents’ social and emotional development. Empathy flourishes in environments that foster mutual respect and understanding among peers, while self-efficacy is strengthened in classrooms that encourage active participation and collaboration. Despite its importance, limited research has examined how structured anti-hate speech interventions, such as HateLess, directly influence classroom climate and indirectly impact psychosocial outcomes like empathy and self-efficacy through changes in classroom dynamics. The HateLess program aims to foster an inclusive and cohesive classroom climate by promoting understanding and respect for diversity, strengthening social bonds, and encouraging collaborative efforts. These shifts in classroom dynamics are expected to create an environment that nurtures empathy and self-efficacy. To address the scarcity of empirical evidence, the present study examined the direct effects of the HateLess program on classroom inclusivity and cohesion and its indirect effects on students’ empathy and self-efficacy through changes in classroom climate. Given these considerations, the study is guided by four hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Participation in HateLess predicts higher levels of inclusive classroom climate.

Hypothesis 2. Participation in HateLess predicts higher levels of classroom cohesion.

Hypothesis 3. Participation in HateLess predicts higher levels of empathy via higher levels of inclusive classroom climate and cohesion.

Hypothesis 4. Participation in HateLess predicts higher levels of self-efficacy via higher levels of inclusive classroom climate and cohesion.

Method

Participants

An a priori power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) indicated that a sample of at least 782 participants (α = .05, power = 0.80) was necessary to identify small to medium effects. The sample for this study comprised 820 adolescents aged between 12 and 16 years (M = 13.27, SD = 1.04) from grades 7 to 9 (seventh grade: 39.8%; eighth grade: 40.5%, ninth grade: 19.8%) in 37 classes from 11 schools. Of the total sample, 47.3% identified as female, 51% as male, 1.2% as gender diverse, and 0.5% did not indicate their gender. Overall, 35.6% had an immigrant background, 63.3% did not, and 1.1% did not provide this information. The intervention group consisted of 567 participants (M_age = 13.24, SD = 1.07, 45.9% female, 35.8% had an immigrant background), and the control group included 253 participants (M_age = 13.35, SD = 0.97, 50.6% female, 35.2% had an immigrant background). There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups regarding age, t(814) = 1.12, p = .130, gender, χ² (1, N = 806) = 1.36, p = .244, or immigrant background, χ2 (1, N = 817) = 2.36, p = .125.

Measures

Inclusive Classroom Climate

Five items were used to measure inclusive classroom climate (e.g., “In my class, one can be different from the others without worry”; Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2013). Responses were given on a scale ranging from “absolutely disagree” (1) to “absolutely agree” (4). The internal consistency of the scale in the current sample was good, Cronbach’s alpha _T1 = .85/_T2 = .87; McDonald’s omega _T1 = .83/_T2 = .96. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) confirmed construct validity: CFA_T1: χ² = 29.32, df = 4, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.07 [0.05, 0.10], SRMR = 0.03; CFA_T2: χ² = 6.42, df = 4, p < .001, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02 [0.01, 0.07], SRMR = 0.02.

Classroom Cohesion

Five items were used to measure classroom cohesion (e.g., “In my class, we have a good sense of community”; Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2013). Responses were given on a scale ranging from “absolutely disagree” (1) to “absolutely agree” (4). The internal consistency of the scale in the current sample was good, Cronbach’s alpha _T1 = .81/_T2 = .82; McDonald’s omega _T1 = .80/_T2 = .81. CFAs confirmed construct validity: CFA_T1: χ² = 13.71, df = 4, p = .008, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05 [0.03, 0.09], SRMR = 0.02; CFA_T2: χ2 = 11.77, df = 4, p = .038, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.50 [0.01, 0.09], SRMR = 0.02.

Empathy

Six items were used to measure participants’ empathy for victims of hate speech. The instrument, adapted from Knauf et al. (2018), was introduced about hate speech: “When I see classmates being insulted or attacked by other classmates because of their skin color, origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. . ..” Participants rated their agreement with the six items (e.g., “I can well imagine how bad it must be for them”) on a scale from “absolutely disagree” (1) to “absolutely agree” (5). The internal consistency of the empathy scale in the current sample was good, Cronbach’s alpha _T1 = .89/_T2 = .90; McDonald’s omega _T1 = .89/_T2 = .91. CFAs confirmed construct validity: CFA_T1: χ² = 46.04, df = 5, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06 [0.04, 0.10], SRMR = 0.03; CFA_T2: χ² = 43.04, df = 5, p < .001, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07 [0.03, 0.12], SRMR = 0.02.

Self-Efficacy

Three items were used to measure participants’ self-efficacy in intervening against hate speech (e.g., “I know that there are things I can do to improve the situation”; Knauf et al., 2018). Responses were rated on a scale from “absolutely disagree” (1) to “absolutely agree” (5). The internal consistency of the self-efficacy scale in the current sample was good, Cronbach’s alpha _T1 = .85/_T2 = .87; McDonald’s omega _T1 = .85/_T2 = .88. CFAs confirmed construct validity: CFA_T1: χ2= 6.81, df = 2, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.06 [0.02, 0.12], SRMR = 0.07; CFA_T2: χ2= 5.01, df = 2, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04 [0.01, 0.07], SRMR = 0.03.

Control Variables

Participants were asked to provide their age and gender, with gender options of male, female, and gender diverse. To determine their immigrant background, participants were questioned if they or their parents were born in a country other than Germany. According to the official German criteria for immigrant background (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2022), participants were classified as having an immigrant background if they or at least one of their parents were born outside of Germany.

Procedure

Sampling Procedure

This study received ethical approval from the data protection officer and the educational authority in the Federal State of Brandenburg and the Federal State of Berlin, Germany. Schools could randomly assign their classes to the intervention conditions to facilitate participation. All participating schools were provided with educational materials and multimedia content to support the implementation of the intervention. We contacted 34 schools via email and phone, detailing the opportunity to be part of the random selection for the study. Nineteen schools declined, citing local spikes in COVID-19 cases, resource constraints, or prior commitments to other prevention initiatives. Four schools did not respond. Ultimately, 11 schools, representing a 32% acceptance rate, agreed to join the study. These schools were selected based on their scheduling flexibility and assurance that they were not concurrently running similar anti-hate speech or anti-bullying programs. Out of the 44 classes initially approached, 7 opted out, resulting in an 84% acceptance rate at the class level (n = 37). We invited 909 adolescents to participate, and 31 declined, leading to a 96% response rate at the student level (n = 878). Of these, 820 adolescents completed both the pretest (T1) and posttest (T2), with 58 not participating. Data collection occurred 1 week before the intervention (T1) and 1 month after the intervention (T2), from June to November 2022. The data were collected through computer-assisted personal interviews conducted by trained research assistants during regular class sessions. Schools were provided with comprehensive HateLess materials, including teacher manuals and activity resources, to support implementation, but the schools conducted the intervention independently without external facilitation.

Data Analysis

Missing Data Analysis

The missing data for each variable were examined using SPSS 29.0 (IBM Corp, 2023). The percentage of missing data ranged from 0.2% (T1 empathy) to 4.9% (T2 self-efficacy). The Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test indicated that the data were not likely to be MCAR, χ2 = 365.32, df = 82, p < .001. Prior research has demonstrated that the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator provides significantly more precise and less biased estimates than traditional methods for handling missing data, such as simple imputation and listwise deletion (Peyre et al., 2011). Additionally, FIML has been shown to remain robust even when the missing at random assumption is violated (Enders, 2010). Therefore, the FIML estimator in Mplus was employed to address missing data.

Preliminary Analysis

We conducted descriptive statistical analyses and bivariate correlations to explore the study’s variables. We conducted independent t-tests for each outcome variable at the pretest to examine baseline differences between the experimental and control groups. This approach was chosen because it allows the comparison of mean differences between two independent groups. We evaluated the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances before conducting the t-tests, and any violations were addressed using appropriate adjustments (e.g., Welch’s t-test for unequal variances).

Main Analysis

The study’s hypotheses were tested using a two-level multilevel mediation model, which accounts for the nested structure of the data (students within classrooms) and reduces the risk of biased estimates due to clustering effects. The decision to use this model was guided by the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) calculated for each outcome variable, which indicated significant clustering at the classroom level. First, we estimated ICC with a model with only a random intercept. Next, we developed a multilevel mediation model to test the direct effects of being in the intervention versus the control group on T2 inclusive classroom climate (Hypothesis 1), classroom cohesion (Hypothesis 2), empathy, and self-efficacy. Finally, we investigated four indirect pathways: the effect of group assignment on T2 empathy via T2 inclusive classroom climate and classroom cohesion (Hypothesis 3) and the effect of group assignment on T2 self-efficacy through T2 inclusive classroom climate and classroom cohesion (Hypothesis 4). Baseline measures of inclusive classroom climate, classroom cohesion, empathy, and self-efficacy were controlled for, along with demographic variables such as age, gender, and immigration background. These controls were applied to T2 outcomes. All predictors were entered at the student level (Level 1), with no predictors at the classroom level (Level 2). This approach allowed us to simultaneously estimate direct and indirect effects while controlling for baseline measures and demographic variables, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the intervention’s impact. The analysis included 37 classes, with an average class size of 22 adolescents, and was conducted using Mplus 8.7 software (Muthén & Muthén, 2021).

Finally, effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d, which measures the magnitude of the intervention’s impact in standard deviation (SD) units. Cohen’s d was derived from the unstandardized regression coefficients (B) provided by the multilevel mediation model in the study. The pooled SD for each outcome was calculated based on the standard deviations of the intervention and control groups. The formula used to calculate the pooled SD was as follows:

S D_{pooled} = \sqrt{\frac{(n_{1} - 1) * S D_{1}^{2} + (n_{2} - 1) * S D_{2}^{2}}{n_{1} + n_{2} - 2}}

where n₁ and n₂ are the sample sizes for the intervention and control groups, respectively, and SD₁ and SD₂ are the SD for the intervention and control groups.

Once the pooled SD was obtained, Cohen’s d was calculated using the following formula:

d = \frac{B}{S D_{pooled}}

where B is the unstandardized regression coefficient from the multilevel mediation model, and SD_pooled is the pooled standard deviation calculated in the previous step.

Results

Descriptive Analysis and Bivariate Correlations

To examine possible baseline differences between the experimental conditions (intervention group vs. control group), t-tests were conducted separately for each outcome at the pretest. Results showed no significant differences between the intervention and control groups for inclusive classroom climate (t[803] = 0.458, p = .324), classroom cohesion (t[813] = 0.111, p = .456), empathy (t[818] = 0.812, p = .417), and self-efficacy (t[818] = 1.60, p = .109), confirming the comparability of the groups across the conditions. Table 1 shows the correlations and descriptives of the study’s main variables. All correlations were in the expected direction, ranging from r = .10 to .56.

Table 1.

Correlations and Descriptives Among the Study’s Main Variables.

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
1. Inclusive classroom climate (T1)	—	.46**	.31**	.17*	.25**	.12**	.21**	.10**
2. Inclusive classroom climate (T2)		—	.31**	.46**	.21**	.32**	.18**	.36**
3. Classroom cohesion (T1)			—	.56**	.33**	.21**	.34**	.23**
4. Classroom cohesion (T2)				—	.18**	.33**	.14**	.34**
5. Empathy (T1)					—	.52**	.53**	.39**
6. Empathy (T2)						—	.34**	.51**
7. Self-efficacy (T1)							—	.46**
8. Self-efficacy (T2)								—
M _intervention	3.30	3.69	2.99	3.34	2.61	2.90	2.54	3.01
SD _intervention	0.72	0.56	0.82	0.62	0.77	0.77	0.77	0.83
M _control	3.34	3.33	2.99	3.00	2.66	2.58	2.65	2.61
SD _control	0.83	0.90	0.82	0.82	0.76	0.76	0.77	0.78

Note. T1 = pretest, T2 = posttest; SD = standard deviation.

p < .01. **p < .001.

Multilevel Mediation Model

A CFA supported the adequacy of the measurement model, χ² = 426.50, df = 129, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05 [0.04, 0.07], SRMR = 0.04. Then, a multilevel model with only a random intercept was used to estimate the ICC. This model revealed that the ICC was .20 for inclusive classroom climate (T2), .14 for classroom cohesion (T2), .12 for empathy (T2), and .08 for self-efficacy (T2). Subsequently, a comprehensive multilevel mediation model was estimated, incorporating all direct and indirect paths (see Table 2). This model explained 15.3% of the total variance in inclusive classroom climate (R² = .153), 30.8% of the total variance in classroom cohesion (R² = .308), 36.3% of the total variance in empathy (R² = .363), and 32.4% of the total variance in self-efficacy (R² = .324).

Table 2.

Results of the Multilevel Mediation Model.

Predictor	Mediator	Outcome	B (SE)	p
Direct effects
Group assignment: intervention	Inclusive classroom climate (T2)		0.48 (0.15)	<.001
Group assignment: intervention	Classroom cohesion (T2)		0.46 (0.09)	<.001
Group assignment: intervention		Empathy (T2)	0.25 (0.07)	<.001
Group assignment: intervention		Self-efficacy (T2)	0.31 (0.08)	<.001
	Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	Empathy (T2)	0.16 (0.04)	<.001
	Classroom cohesion (T2)	Empathy (T2)	0.20 (0.05)	<.001
	Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	Self-efficacy (T2)	0.19 (0.04)	<.001
	Classroom cohesion (T2)	Self-efficacy (T2)	0.19 (0.05)	<.001
Indirect effects
Group assignment: intervention	Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	Empathy (T2)	0.08 (0.02) 95% CI [0.03, 0.12]
Group assignment: intervention	Classroom cohesion (T2)	Empathy (T2)	0.09 (0.03) 95% CI [0.03, 0.15]
Group assignment: intervention	Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	Self-efficacy (T2)	0.09 (0.04) 95% CI [0.02, 0.16]
Group assignment: intervention	Classroom cohesion (T2)	Self-efficacy (T2)	0.09 (0.03) 95% CI [0.03, 0.14]
Control variables
Age		Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	−0.07 (0.05)	.180
Age		Classroom cohesion (T2)	−0.06 (0.04)	.184
Age		Empathy (T2)	−0.02 (0.02)	.741
Age		Self-efficacy (T2)	−0.04 (0.03)	.128
Gender: girls		Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	0.10 (0.11)	.180
Gender: girls		Classroom cohesion (T2)	0.17 (0.07)	.011
Gender: girls		Empathy (T2)	0.23 (0.03)	.008
Gender: girls		Self-efficacy (T2)	−0.09 (0.07)	.211
Immigrant background: yes		Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	0.22 (0.16)	.163
Immigrant background: yes		Classroom cohesion (T2)	0.39 (0.13)	.003
Immigrant background: yes		Empathy (T2)	−0.03 (0.04)	.411
Immigrant background: yes		Self-efficacy (T2)	0.03 (0.04)	.469
Inclusive classroom climate (T1)		Inclusive classroom climate (T2)	0.29 (0.09)	<.001
Classroom cohesion (T1)		Classroom cohesion (T2)	0.45 (0.06)	<.001
Empathy (T1)		Empathy (T2)	0.45 (0.05)	<.001
Self-efficacy (T1)		Self-efficacy (T2)	0.40 (0.04)	<.001

Note. Reference category: group assignment = control group; gender = boys; immigrant background = no. T1 = pretest, T2 = posttest; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

The multilevel mediation model revealed that adolescents in the intervention group reported higher levels of inclusive classroom climate (B = 0.48, SE = 0.15, p < .001, d = 0.70), supporting Hypothesis 1, and classroom cohesion (B = 0.46, SE = 0.09, p < .001, d = 0.67), supporting Hypothesis 2. In addition, adolescents in the intervention group reported higher levels of inclusive empathy (B = 0.25, SE = 0.07, p < .001, d = 0.33) and self-efficacy (B = 0.31, SE = 0.08, p < .001, d = 0.38) at T2. Moreover, the inclusive classroom climate at T2 was positively associated with both empathy (B = 0.16, SE = 0.04, p < .001) and self-efficacy (B = 0.19, SE = 0.04, p < .001) at T2. Similarly, classroom cohesion at T2 was positively associated with empathy (B = 0.20, SE = 0.05, p < .001) and self-efficacy (B = 0.19, SE = 0.05, p < .001) at T2 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Direct effects of group assignment on inclusive classroom climate, classroom cohesion, empathy, and self-efficacy.

The mediation analysis also identified significant indirect effects. The group assignment intervention had an indirect effect on empathy (T2) through inclusive classroom climate (B = 0.08, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.03, 0.12]) and classroom cohesion (B = 0.09, SE = 0.03 [0.03, 0.15]), supporting Hypothesis 3. Additionally, the intervention indirectly influenced self-efficacy through both inclusive classroom climate (B = 0.09, SE = 0.04 [0.02, 0.16]) and classroom cohesion (B = 0.09, SE = 0.03 [0.03, 0.14]), supporting Hypothesis 4.

The effects of age, gender, and immigrant background were examined. Gender significantly predicted classroom cohesion (B = 0.17, SE = 0.07, p = .011) and empathy (B = 0.23, SE = 0.03, p = .008), with girls reporting higher levels than boys. Immigrant background significantly predicted classroom cohesion (B = 0.39, SE = 0.13, p = .003), with participants from immigrant backgrounds reporting higher levels. However, age and other effects of gender and immigrant background on inclusive classroom climate, empathy, and self-efficacy were not significant. Pretest (T1) measures were significant predictors of corresponding posttest (T2) measures for inclusive classroom climate (B = 0.29, SE = 0.09, p < .001), classroom cohesion (B = 0.45, SE = 0.06, p < .001), empathy (B = 0.45, SE = 0.05, p < .001), and self-efficacy (B = 0.40, SE = 0.04, p < .001).

Discussion

This study provides crucial insights into the effectiveness of the HateLess program in enhancing classroom climate and key psychosocial outcomes among adolescents. By directly influencing classroom inclusivity and cohesion, the program creates a supportive environment that fosters empathy and self-efficacy—essential components in combating hate speech (Wachs et al., 2024b). Our findings support all four hypotheses, demonstrating both the direct and indirect positive effects of HateLess on classroom dynamics and individual competencies. These results underscore the multifaceted benefits of implementing structured programs to reduce hate speech within schools.

Direct Effects of Participation in HateLess on Inclusive Classroom Climate and Cohesion

Consistent with Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, participating in HateLess significantly enhanced both inclusive classroom climate and cohesion. A possible explanation might be that, by actively involving students in creating anti-hate speech rules and norms, HateLess promoted a sense of ownership and collective responsibility, which is crucial for fostering an inclusive and cohesive environment. The program’s emphasis on recognizing and appreciating diversity likely contributed to a more inclusive atmosphere where students felt valued and respected. The short-term effects on the two classroom climate dimensions were medium to large. Our findings align with the broader literature that shows the significant positive effects of structured interventions on school climate (Charlton et al., 2021). The effect sizes in our study fall within the range observed in other well-regarded interventions, especially those focusing on social and emotional learning (Charlton et al., 2021). This suggests that the HateLess program is similarly effective in enhancing the school environment and social dynamics, even though it explicitly addresses hate speech.

Indirect Effects of Participation in HateLess on Empathy and Self-Efficacy via Inclusive Classroom Climate and Cohesion

The study’s findings support Hypotheses 3 and 4, indicating that the HateLess intervention indirectly increased students’ empathy for victims of hate speech and their self-efficacy toward intervening in such situations through improvements in classroom climate and cohesion. The intervention’s direct and indirect effects on empathy highlight the importance of fostering positive interpersonal relationships and emotional safety within classrooms. The program’s activities, which included discussing diverse experiences and fostering mutual respect, likely facilitated greater understanding and empathy among students. Similarly, the increase in self-efficacy can be attributed to the supportive and collaborative classroom environment promoted by the HateLess program. When students feel supported and valued by their peers, they are more likely to engage actively in social interactions and feel confident intervening in adverse situations. The increases in empathy and self-efficacy reflect the broader literature on social learning, peer influence, and individual development during adolescence (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007; Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2019) and initial research on the relationship between classroom climate and adolescents’ empathy for victims of hate speech and self-efficacy toward intervening in hate speech (Wachs et al., 2023a). These effects are particularly important concerning hate speech prevention, given the previous evaluation findings that empathy and self-efficacy play a crucial role in reducing hate speech perpetration and victimization and increasing counterspeech (Wachs et al., 2023b, 2024b).

Practical Implications

The current study’s findings offer several practical implications. First, structured prevention measures have the potential to positively foster classroom climate, as shown in this study by the increase in inclusive classroom climate and cohesion following the HateLess program. Particularly in view of the beneficial effects of a positive classroom climate for students (Wang et al., 2020), such preventive measures should be broadly implemented in schools, which can be supported by integrating them into school-wide policies. Beneficial effects of classroom climate were also found in this study, as inclusive classroom climate and cohesion acted as mediators of the positive impact of the HateLess program on empathy and self-efficacy.

Second, schools should view inclusivity and cohesion as goals and pathways for nurturing empathetic and empowered students. Given the significant role of classroom climate in enhancing empathy and self-efficacy, peer-led initiatives such as mentorship programs or student-led workshops on diversity and hate speech awareness can be particularly impactful. These initiatives could capitalize on peer influence to foster long-term cultural shifts within classrooms. While immediate improvements in classroom climate were evident, sustaining these changes over time requires ongoing effort. Schools should implement long-term strategies, such as continuous monitoring of classroom dynamics, periodic refresher sessions of the HateLess program, and embedding inclusivity as a core school value. Regular assessments of classroom climate can ensure that progress in empathy, self-efficacy, and overall climate is maintained. In addition, scholars who aim to design anti-hate speech interventions should integrate classroom climate-focused modules to address the broader social and emotional dynamics within classrooms and enhance individual behaviors.

Finally, teachers play a pivotal role in fostering inclusive and cohesive classroom environments (Bilz et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2020). Teachers can reinforce inclusivity and mutual respect by incorporating discussions on cultural, social, and personal diversity into their lessons and facilitating activities promoting a sense of belonging (Hymel & Katz, 2019). To equip them for this role, schools should offer ongoing professional development focusing on classroom management, conflict resolution, facilitating sensitive discussions, and effectively managing classroom dynamics. Given that many teachers feel underprepared to address hate speech (Krause et al., 2023), professional development programs should also emphasize how a cohesive, inclusive environment supports empathy and self-efficacy and forms the foundation for such skills, as demonstrated by the findings of this study.

Limitations and Future Research

While the current study offers valuable insights into the effects of the HateLess program, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study relied on self-reported measures for assessing outcomes such as inclusive classroom climate, cohesion, empathy, and self-efficacy. Self-reports are subject to biases such as social desirability and recall bias, which could affect the validity of the findings. Future research could benefit from incorporating a multi-method approach, including teacher observations, peer assessments, or objective behavioral measures, to provide a more comprehensive assessment of classroom dynamics and individual behaviors.

Second, due to the limitation of the selected two measurement points, there are still remaining questions regarding (a) the temporal sequencing between mediators and outcome variables, (b) long-term sustainability and effects, and (c) bidirectional associations between classroom climate and critical outcomes. Both the mediators (inclusive classroom climate and cohesion) and the outcome variables (empathy and self-efficacy) were measured at the same time point (T2). However, prevention science emphasizes the importance of measuring mediators and outcomes at different time points to understand better the temporal pathways through which interventions exert their effects (Kraemer et al., 2002). Along the same line, bidirectional associations between classroom climate and critical outcomes such as empathy and self-efficacy should be examined, as improvements in a supportive classroom environment may not only foster prosocial skills but also be reinforced by students’ growing sense of empathy and self-efficacy, creating a positive feedback loop that strengthens both the climate and individual development over time (Luengo Kanacri et al., 2017). Lastly, prevention science also highlights the importance of examining long-term sustainability and effects, especially as the full impact of interventions may take time to manifest. However, the present study focused on short-term outcomes 1 month after the intervention. Follow-up studies with additional measurement points over more extended periods can address these issues.

Third, the quasi-experimental design limits the ability to make strong causal inferences. Although the intervention and control groups were well-matched, random assignment was not feasible in this study. This limitation can introduce selection bias, where unmeasured pre-existing differences between groups may have influenced the results. Future studies should consider employing randomized controlled trial designs to strengthen the causal claims of anti-hate speech prevention programs like HateLess.

Fourth, the findings are based on adolescents from German schools shaped by unique cultural and educational contexts. While this provides valuable insights, the results may not fully generalize to countries or regions with different approaches to hate speech, varying levels of ethnic and cultural diversity, or alternative educational systems. For example, classrooms in more socially homogeneous or heterogeneous settings may exhibit dynamics that could influence the program’s effectiveness, such as differing intergroup interaction or inclusion practices. In addition, the program’s impact on typical target groups of hate speech, such as students with immigrant backgrounds, LGBTQIA+ students, or those with special educational needs (Castellanos et al., 2023), warrants further exploration. These currently underrepresented or marginalized groups may have unique experiences and challenges related to classroom climate and hate speech, making it essential to test whether HateLess addresses their specific needs effectively. Understanding these nuances could provide valuable insights into how interventions like HateLess can be tailored to promote inclusivity and equity more broadly.

Finally, the focus on classroom climate as a mediating factor underscores the importance of environmental contexts in shaping individual outcomes. However, the study could further explore other potential mediators, such as teacher-student relationships or the broader school climate, which may interact with classroom dynamics to influence program effectiveness. Prevention science advocates for comprehensive, multilevel models considering interactions across individual, relational, and systemic levels (Gradinger & Strohmeier, 2018). Including these additional factors in future research could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms that drive HateLess’s success.

Conclusion

The present study extends prior research on the HateLess program by demonstrating its effectiveness in improving classroom climate and fostering essential social outcomes. Participation in the HateLess program significantly improved both inclusive classroom climate and classroom cohesion. These enhancements, in turn, were positively associated with students’ empathy and self-efficacy, underscoring the critical role that structured educational interventions can play in promoting positive social outcomes within schools. By creating supportive and collaborative classroom environments, schools can empower adolescents to take a proactive stance against hate speech. In addition, the findings contribute valuable insights into the design and implementation of educational interventions, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive approaches to cultivating inclusive and supportive learning spaces for all students. While the study provides robust evidence for the immediate impacts of the HateLess program, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term sustainability of these improvements and their broader influence on adolescents’ social development. Additionally, exploring the program’s adaptability across different cultural and educational contexts could provide valuable insights for scaling such interventions. Continued exploration of classroom-based interventions remains essential for developing inclusive, equitable, and supportive educational environments that empower students to challenge hate speech and foster respect and collaboration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sebastian Wachs

Catherine Schittenhelm

Maxime Kops

Author Biographies

Sebastian Wachs, PhD, is a professor of education with a Specialization in Digitalization at the University of Münster, Germany. His research interests focus on young people’s emotional and social development, well-being, risky behavior, and aggressive behavior in the online and ofﬂine context and the development and evaluation of prevention programs.

Catherine Schittenhelm, MEd, is a research associate and doctoral candidate at the Institute of Education at the University of Münster, Germany, holding a master’s degree in psychology. Her major research interests include online risks and their impact on children and adolescents, focusing on cybergrooming victimization in her dissertation.

Maxime Kops, MSc, is a research associate and a doctoral candidate at the Institute of Education at the University of Münster, Germany. Her research interests include online risks and how young people deal with these new challenges and are influenced by them. She focuses primarily on fake news, disinformation, and misinformation.

Michelle F. Wright, PhD, is an assistant professor at Indiana State University. Her research focuses on the contextual factors that influence children’s, adolescents’, and young adults’ involvement in aggressive behaviors, with a special interest in social goals, peer status, and cultural values. Another interest is the role of technology in data collection and delivering interventions.

References

Ballaschk

Wachs

Krause

Schulze-Reichelt

Kansok-Dusche

Bilz

Schubarth

(2021). “Dann machen halt alle mit.” Eine qualitative Studie zu Beweggründen und Motiven für Hatespeech unter Schüler* innen. Discourse Journal of Childhood and Adolescence Research, 16(4), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.3224/diskurs.v16i4.01

Bilz

Fischer

S. M.

Kansok-Dusche

Wachs

Wettstein

(2024). Teachers’ intervention strategies for handling hate-speech incidents in schools. Social Psychology of Education, 27, 2701–2724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09929-9

Boele

Van der Graaff

De Wied

Van der Valk

I. E.

Crocetti

Branje

(2019). Linking parent–child and peer relationship quality to empathy in adolescence: A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 1033–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00993-5

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. (2013). M 01.02 Fragebogen zum Thema Klassenklima. https://www.bpb.de/lernen/angebote/grafstat/klassencheckup/46318/m-01-02-fragebogen-zum-thema-klassenklima/

Castellanos

Wettstein

Wachs

Kansok-Dusche

Ballaschk

Krause

Bilz

(2023). Hate speech in adolescents: A binational study on prevalence and demographic differences. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1076249. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1076249

Charlton

C. T.

Moulton

Sabey

C. V.

West

(2021). A systematic review of the effects of schoolwide intervention programs on student and teacher perceptions of school climate. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23(3), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720940168

Donohoe

(2020). Teachers using role-play to prevent bullying. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2(4), 264–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00036-4

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Knafo-Noam

(2015). Prosocial development. In Lamb

M. E.

Lerner

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes (7th ed., pp. 610–656). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.

11.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

12.

Xiao

Yin

Zhou

(2022). The relationship of inclusive climate and peers’ attitude on children with disabilities in China: A mediating role of empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1034232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1034232

13.

Gradinger

Strohmeier

(2018). Cyberbullying prevention within a socio-ecological framework: The ViSC social competence program. In Campbell

Bauman

(Eds.). Reducing cyberbullying in schools: International evidence-based best practices (pp. 189–202). Elsevier Academic Press.

14.

Hong

F. Y.

Chiu

S. I.

Huang

D. H.

Chiu

S. L.

(2021). Correlations among classroom emotional climate, social self-efficacy, and psychological health of university students in Taiwan. Education and Urban Society, 53(4), 446–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520931458

15.

Hymel

Katz

(2019). Designing classrooms for diversity: Fostering social inclusion. Educational Psychologist, 54(4), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1652098

16.

IBM Corp. (2023). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 29.0.2.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.

17.

Kansok-Dusche

Ballaschk

Krause

Zeißig

Seemann-Herz

Wachs

Bilz

(2023). A systematic review on hate speech among children and adolescents: Definitions, prevalence, and overlap with related phenomena. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2598–2615. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221108070

18.

Knauf

R. K.

Eschenbeck

Hock

(2018). Bystanders of bullying: Social-cognitive and affective reactions to school bullying and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 12(4), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2018-4-3

19.

Kraemer

H. C.

Wilson

G. T.

Fairburn

C. G.

Agras

W. S.

(2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(10), 877–883. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.877

20.

Krause

Wachs

(2024). Ein guter Gegenpol sein“, wenn der Hass kommt. Eine qualitative Befragung von Lehrkräften zur Implementation und Wirkungsweise des Präventionsprogramms HateLess. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-024-00463-4

21.

Krause

Wachs

Bilz

Schubarth

(2023). “Eine Einschätzung, die in Sekunden passieren muss”: Eine qualitative Studie zu Gründen für ausbleibende Interventionen durch das pädagogische Schulpersonal bei Hatespeech unter Schüler. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 26(6), 1527–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-023-01179-3

22.

Lent

R. W.

Schmidt

(2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.04.001

23.

Loukas

(2007). What is school climate? Leadership Compass, 5(1), 1–3.

24.

Low

Van Ryzin

(2014). The moderating effects of school climate on bullying prevention efforts. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 306–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000073

25.

Luengo Kanacri

B. P.

Eisenberg

Thartori

Pastorelli

Uribe Tirado

L. U.

Gerbino

Caprara

. (2017). Longitudinal relations among positivity, perceived positive school climate, and prosocial behavior in Colombian adolescents. Child Development, 88(4), 1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12863

26.

Margas

(2023). Inclusive classroom climate development as the cornerstone of inclusive school building: Review and perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1171204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1171204

27.

McGiboney

G. W.

(2023). The psychology of school climate. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

28.

Miklikowska

Tilton-Weaver

Burk

W. J.

(2022). With a little help from my empathic friends: The role of peers in the development of empathy in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 58(6), 1156–1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001347

29.

Monteiro

Carvalho

Santos

N. N.

(2021, June). Creating a supportive classroom environment through effective feedback: Effects on students’ school identification and behavioral engagement. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 661736. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.661736

30.

Muthén

B. O.

Muthén

(2021). Mplus 8.7. [Computer Software]. Muthén and Muthén.

31.

Peyre

Leplège

Coste

(2011). Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires. A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Quality of Life Research, 20, 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9740-3

32.

Roeser

Eccles

Safavian

Rubach

(2024). School influences on child and adolescent development. In Bornstein

M. H.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds.), Developmental Science. An Advanced Textbook (pp. 407–430). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003387145-18

33.

Ruggeri

Luan

Keller

Gummerum

(2018). The influence of adult and peer role models on children’s and adolescents’ sharing decisions. Child Development, 89(5), 1589–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12916

34.

Schunk

D. H.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578

35.

Schürer

van Ophuysen

(2022). Relationship between group cohesion and social participation of pupils with learning and behavioural difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(5), 866–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1963150

36.

Seemann-Herz

Kansok-Dusche

Dix

Wachs

Krause

Ballaschk

Schulze-Reichelt

Bilz

(2022). Schulbezogene Programme zum Umgang mit Hatespeech–Eine kriteriengeleitete Bestandsaufnahme. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 12(3), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-022-00348-4

37.

Sjögren

Thornberg

Wänström

Gini

(2021). Bystander behaviour in peer victimisation: Moral disengagement, defender self-efficacy and student-teacher relationship quality. Research Papers in Education, 36(5), 588–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1723679

38.

Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). (2022). Migration und Integration. Migrationshintergrund. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Migration-Integration/Glossar/migrationshintergrund.html

39.

UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. UNESCO. https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf

40.

United Nations. (2023). Addressing hate speech through education: A guide for policy-makers. United Nations. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/addressing-hate-speech-through-education-guide-policy-makers

41.

Van Ryzin

M. J.

Roseth

C. J

. (2019). Effects of cooperative learning on peer relations, empathy, and bullying in middle school. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21858

42.

Van Ryzin

M. J.

Roseth

C. J

. (2022). The longitudinal relationship between peer relations and empathy and their joint contribution to reducing bullying in middle school: findings from a randomized trial of cooperative learning. Journal of Prevention and Health Promotion, 3(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632077022109403

43.

Veldin

Kozina

Mornar

Dahlström

(2020). Students’ empathy and classroom climate as predictors of attitudes towards immigrants: A case study in three EU countries. In Pracana

Wang

(Eds.), Psychology Applications & Developments VI (pp. 316–327). Science Press.

44.

Wachs

Castellanos

Wettstein

Bilz

Gámez-Guadix

(2023a). Associations between classroom climate, empathy, self-efficacy, and countering hate speech among adolescents: A multilevel mediation analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(5–6), 5067–5091. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221120905

45.

Wachs

Gámez-Guadix

Wright

M. F.

(2022a). Online hate speech victimization and depressive symptoms among adolescents: The protective role of resilience. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(7), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.000

46.

Wachs

Krause

Wright

M. F.

Gámez-Guadix

(2023b). Effects of the prevention program “HateLess. together against hatred” on adolescents’ empathy, self-efficacy, and countering hate speech. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(6), 1115–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01753-2

47.

Wachs

Wettstein

Bilz

Espelage

D. L.

Wright

M. F.

Gámez-Guadix

(2024a). Individual and contextual correlates of latent bystander profiles toward racist hate speech: a multilevel person-centered approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 53(6), 1271–1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-01968-x

48.

Wachs

Wettstein

Bilz

Gámez-Guadix

(2022b). Adolescents’ motivations to perpetrate hate speech and links with social norms. Comunicar, 30(71), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.3916/C71-2022-01

49.

Wachs

Wright

M. F.

Gámez-Guadix

(2024b). From hate speech to HateLess. The effectiveness of a prevention program on adolescents’ online hate speech involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 157, Article 108250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.10825

50.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

J. L.

Amemiya

Parr

Guo

(2020). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, Article 100912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912

51.

Zysberg

Schwabsky

(2021). School climate, academic self-efficacy and student achievement. Educational Psychology, 41(4), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1813690