Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Differences in bullying rates between schools could be explained by school efficacy. This study examined the relationships among teachers’ perceptions of principals’ practices, school climate, and school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. The sample comprises 403 Mexican elementary-school teachers; 35% were male, and 65% were female. The teaching experience ranged from 2 to 35 years (M = 13.2 years, SD = 9.1). Teachers answered self-report measures. A latent variable structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used. SEM model indicated that principal’s bullying prevention was directly related to a positive school climate, but they did not influence teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy. Also, principals’ support for teachers’ antibullying practices positively affected school climate and school collective efficacy. Both principal involvement and support had an indirect relationship with school collective efficacy. Overall, findings suggest that the principal has a critical role in promoting teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy in bullying prevention.

Keywords

principal teachers school climate school collective efficacy

Bullying is associated with severe short and long-term physical, psychological, and behavioral disorders (Bradshaw, 2015; Fullchange & Furlong, 2016; Holt et al., 2015; Schoeler et al., 2018; Wolgast & Donat, 2019). Unfortunately, the literature consistently demonstrates the prevalence of aggressive behaviors in schools worldwide (Craig et al., 2009; Modecki et al., 2014; Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2018). Schools have an ethical and legal responsibility to prevent bullying, ensuring students’ safety and human rights (Rosen & Cowan, 2012; Sercombe & Donnelly, 2013).

Scholars suggest that the school context is critical to understanding the differences in school bullying rates (Hymel & Swearer, 2015; Muijs, 2017; Pearce et al., 2011; Rose et al., 2015; Volungis & Goodman, 2017). In particular, the Dynamic Model of School Improvement (DASI; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2010; Kyriakides et al., 2014) emphasizes the importance of examining the influence of school-level variables on school learning environments in order to promote a school’s effectiveness toward bullying prevention. The emphasis given in DASI to school-level variables is in line with studies (Ertesvåg & Roland, 2015; Espelage et al., 2003; Hymel et al., 2015; Waasdorp et al., 2011) concluding that bullying is largely the result of norms, social control, and interpersonal relationships inside the school. Particularly, emerging research highlights that collective efficacy is a school ecological construct that may explain bullying rate differences (Aasheim et al., 2020; Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Gini et al., 2020; Williams & Guerra, 2011).

School Collective Efficacy

Collective efficacy emerged from Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986), which is defined as a group’s beliefs about their ability to work together to achieve a common goal (Bandura, 2000; Goddard et al., 2004). Sampson et al. (1997) suggest cohesion, trust, and social control are action-oriented components of collective efficacy. Cohesion and trust are forms of social capital that imply that group members share a sense of belonging to the community and recognize that collective objective mutually benefit each other (Hymel et al., 2015; Li, 2004; Sampson, 2006; Williams & Guerra, 2011). Social control reflects the group’s will to influence its members to achieve collective norms, protect other members, and the community’s good (Cho & Lee, 2018; Church et al., 2012; Goddard et al., 2004; Hirschi, 1969). Drawing on collective efficacy, bullying researchers believe that school members’ beliefs on their school’s efficacy to support students may be effective at either reducing or preventing bullying episodes (Hymel et al., 2015; Sapouna, 2010; Williams & Guerra, 2011).

Empirical studies have demonstrated that school members with higher perceptions of school collective efficacy tend to intervene better in bullying situations (Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Olsson et al., 2017; Sapouna, 2010; Wänström et al., 2019; Williams & Guerra, 2011). However, to our knowledge, there are no studies that examined how school-level variables encourage school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. Therefore, an examination of school variables associated with collective efficacy is essential for whole-school intervention programs.

Principals and School Collective Efficacy

Empirical research using the whole-school approach highlight that principals’ practices are critical to explain differences in bullying rates in schools (Castro Silva et al., 2017; Pepper & Hamilton Thomas, 2002; Rhodes et al., 2009). Moreover, these studies suggest that the effect of principals on bullying prevalence occurs through their influence on school efficacy to prevent bullying (Haataja et al., 2015; Marachi et al., 2007; Whitted & Dupper, 2005). Scholars posit that cooperation and trust among principals and teachers are essential for teachers’ positive perceptions of school efficacy that encourages positive behavior on students (Bryk et al., 2010; Cansoy & Parlar, 2018; Marachi et al., 2007; Skinner et al., 2014).

When principals focus on bullying prevention, it is reflected by the school’s effectiveness to handle bullying when it arises (Ansary et al., 2015; Gülşen & Gülenay, 2014; Lacey & Cornell, 2016; Olweus, 1993). This involvement may include establishing rules and actions to reduce bullying rates, such as supervision plans, meetings with parents, students, and teachers; and attempt to get all school members to commit to anti-bullying intervention strategies (Ansary et al., 2015; Dake et al., 2003; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017).

Implementation of effective school anti-bullying strategies requires commitment from the entire school community. Thus, principal support is an essential component for teacher’s adherence and effort with the strategies (Ahtola et al., 2012; Leithwood et al., 2010; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Principal support involves any resources and processes to reinforce school staff effectiveness to handle bullying (Cohen et al., 2000; Robbins & Alvy, 2014). Supportive principals can foster a sense of responsibility and commitment to bullying prevention in teachers (American Educational Research Association, 2013; Kallestad & Olweus, 2003). Also, when teachers feel supported by the principal and others staff members, they feel more confident to handle bullying, thus increasing collective efficacy (Ahtola et al., 2012; Skinner et al., 2014).

Based on the literature, we believe principals’ involvement and support of teachers’ antibullying practices are related to school collective efficacy to prevent bullying (Ahtola et al., 2012; Ertesvåg & Roland, 2015; Hymel et al., 2015; Skinner et al., 2014). Thus, the present study aims to analyze the influence of principals’ practices on collective teacher efficacy to prevent bullying based on teachers’ perceptions.

The Mediate Influence of School Climate

Lezotte Miller et al. (1980) reminds us that “principals represent the organizational authority of the school, and in that regard, they serve to symbolize what the school stands for, how it will operate, and what is important. In general, they set the educational tone for the school” (p. 93). Hence, scholars believe that principals’ performance can affect school collective efficacy by promoting a positive social climate (Goddard et al., 2015; Hymel et al., 2015; Price, 2012). In this regard, Aladenusi and Ayodele (2014) found that the commitment of teachers to the school’s vision can be affected either positively or negatively by school climate.

Ajay and Mandakini (2013) suggest that school climate affects teachers’ performance, motivation, dedication, satisfaction, and well-being. Scholars report (see Aladenusi & Ayodele, 2014; Bellibas & Liu, 2018; Gülşen & Gülenay, 2014; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2012) that positive school climate incites the commitment of teachers to the school’s vision. Additionally, empirical evidence shows that positive school social climates encourage teacher effort to comply with school social norms, which has related to successful school bullying prevention (Hymel et al., 2015; Konishi et al., 2017; Low & Van Ryzin, 2014; Malinen & Savolainen, 2016; Valdés-Cuervo & Carlos-Martínez, 2014; Wang et al., 2013).

Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997, 2000) suggests that the quality of school social climates influences people’s shared belief about their collective power to produce desired outcomes. Frequent, pleasant, and supportive relationships with school staff raise teachers’ perception of the school’s collective capacity as a whole (Bandura, 1997; Lim & Eo, 2014). Overall, the literature concludes that when teachers perceive school climate as caring and supportive, their bonds with the school community are stronger and, as a consequence, they are more likely to increase their perception of collective efficacy to cope with bullying (Barchia & Bussey, 2011; Hymel et al., 2015; Olsson et al., 2017; Williams & Guerra, 2011). However, despite its relevance, it remains unclear what school factors, especially which principal’s variables can foster school climate, and how they can mediate the effects of school collective efficacy to handle bullying.

Current Study

Despite a bulk of studies showing that bullying is an ecological-social problem (Espelage, 2014; Swearer & Hymel, 2015), bullying research has frequently focused on individual rather than whole-school factors. Many school-based antibullying programs are implemented, but most do not achieve the desired results (Evans et al., 2014; Langford et al., 2015; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to increase research focused on school-level factors that explain successful antibullying programs (Gulemetova et al., 2011; Spillane & Kenney, 2012), especially factors related to the principal’s role in school efficacy to prevent bullying. To the extent that the principal’s role in bullying prevention can be understood, it will help determine their functions and promote their effective involvement. However, no studies known by the authors have explored how the principal influences teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. As a result, there is a lack of clarity about school factors related to bullying prevention, especially the principal’s role.

In this context, the present study examined direct and indirect relationships between principal’s involvement in bullying prevention and support teachers’ antibullying practices, school climate, and school collective efficacy to handle bullying (see Figure 1). The following hypotheses are proposed for this intent:

Hypothesis 1a (direct relations principal’s involvement): A positive relationship between the principal`s involvement in bullying prevention, positive school climate, and the school collective efficacy in preventing bullying was anticipated.

Hypothesis 1b (direct relations principal’s support): A positive relationship between the principal’s support of teachers’ antibullying practices, positive school climate, and school collective efficacy to prevent bullying was expected.

Hypothesis 2a (indirect relations): Principal’s involvement and support indirectly affect school collective efficacy by the positive influence on school climate.

Figure 1.

Hypothetical model depicting the relations between principal’s involvement, principal’s support, school climate, and school collective efficacy in preventing bullying.

Method

Participants

The teachers (n = 2,400) population came from elementary public schools from three cities in Sonora, Mexico. Like other public urban elementary schools in Mexico, these schools educate students with low and middle socioeconomic status (National Institute of Statistics and Geography, 2018). The study comprises 403 teachers selected by simple probabilistic sampling with replacement (p = .5, q = 95%, e = 5%). The sample included 141 males and 262 females. Aged ranged between 22 and 76 years (M = 36.53 years, SD = 10.1). The teaching experience of research participants ranged from 2 to 35 years (M = 13.2 years, SD = 9.1). Regarding teacher’s education, 74% had a bachelor’s degree, and 26% had post-graduate studies.

Measurement

Principal’s involvement

The scale was developed to measure teachers’ perceptions of principals’ involvement in bullying prevention. It comprises 10 items in Likert-type format (1 = Never to 5 = Always) grouped in three dimensions: (a) Schoolwide practices, principal’s activities to involve all school staff in bullying prevention (3 items, e.g., The principal organizes school meetings to handle bullying, Cronbach’s α = .80; McDonald’s ω = .81); (b) Supervision practices, surveillance activities to avoid bullying (3 items, e.g., The principal establishes supervision in school restrooms, α = .84; ω = . 86); and (c) non-permissive intervention, practices focused on stopping aggression and reasoning with students regarding misplaced aggression (4 items, e.g., In a serious situation of bullying, the principal intervenes to solve the problem by talking with the victim, the bully and parents, α = .88; ω = .89). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed a good model fit to the data (χ² = 51.94, df = 31, p = .011; AGFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.035; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.041, 90% CI [0.020, 0.060]).

Principal’s support

The Principal’s Support Scale (PSS; Littrell et al., 1994) was adapted to measure teacher’s perception of principals’ informational, affective, and instrumental support to anti-bullying practices (5 items, e.g., Principal gives me feedback to improve my skills to handle bullying, α = .85; ω = .87). The Likert-type response format was used (0 = never to 4 = always). The CFA results suggest that the model fit the data (χ² = 11.98, df = 5, p = .035; AGFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.014; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.049, 90% CI [0.025, 0.055]).

School climate

We adapted two subscales from the Delaware School Climate Survey-Teacher/Staff (DSCS-T/S; Bear et al., 2014) that measure teachers’ perceptions of the quality of school relationships in bullying events. Items grouped in two dimensions: (a) Teacher-student relations that assess teacher and adult responsiveness to student bullying problems (3 items; e.g., Teacher listens to students when they have bullying problems; α = .75; ω = .76); and Teacher-teach relations that measure respect, caring, and cooperation in relationships between teachers (4 items, e.g., Teachers in this school give me advice about how to handle bullying situations, α = .74; ω = .77). Items respond in five-point Likert-type format (0 = never to 4 = always). The CFA indicates that the model fits the data (χ² = 16.92, df = 11, p = .13; AGFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.016; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.035, 90% CI [0.012, 0.068]).

School collective efficacy

The Collective Teacher Efficacy Scale (CTES; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) was adapted to measures teachers’ perception of whole-school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. The scale comprises 7 items (e.g., Teaching staff of this school can solve bullying situations, α = .79, ω = .80) in five-point Likert-type response format (0 = none 0% to 4 = everyone 100%). The CFA showed the model fit the data (χ² = 18.08, df = 11, p = .08; AGFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.015; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.040, 90% CI [0.02, 0.062]).

Control variable

The control variable includes teaching experience. This variable was measured through years of experience teaching in elementary school. This variable was controlled to account for the differences in the school collective efficacy related to this variable (Burger et al., 2015; Wolters & Daugherty, 2007; Yoon et al., 2011) rather than the principal’s involvement and support.

Procedure

The researchers gained permission from the Ethical Committee of the Food and Development Research Center to conduct the study. Later, a consent letter was sent to teachers in order to request their voluntary participation in the study. Only 8% of teachers refused to participate. Once approvals were gained, teachers were invited to respond to the instruments. Data collection took place in school classrooms during non-school hours.

Data Analysis

Missing values were less than 3% of the data. They were treated using the multiple imputation method, available in SPSS 25. The mean, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlations between the variables were then calculated. Then, an unconditional random effects Anova was conducted to evaluate the school dependence of variables in the study. Results were used to calculate the intraclass correlation (ICC). The ICC < .10, indicated that differences in the variables were not dependent on school membership (Hox, 2010; Lai & Kwok, 2015).

Structural equation models were calculated using AMOS. The maximum likelihood estimation (ML) with Bollen-Stine and bias-corrected confidence intervals bootstraps (500 replicates with 95% CI) was used. The ML bootstrap is an AMOS procedure to deal with multivariate non-normality issues (Arbuckle, 2017; Byrne, 2016). The following statistical tests were used in order to evaluate the global goodness of fit for the model: (a) Chi-squared and associated probability (χ² with p < .001), Bollen-Stine bootstrap p associate > .05, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR ≤ 0.05), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI ≥ 0.95), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI ≥ 0.95), comparative fit index (CFI ≥ 0.95) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.05) with their confidence interval (Bollen & Stine, 1992; Byrne, 2016).

Results

Table 1 shows the means, typical deviations and correlations between the study variables. The results show that teachers’ perception of principals’ involvement and support positively correlates to school collective efficacy. In addition, teachers’ perception of school climate, which is the mediational variable in the model, is also positively associated with collective efficacy. Teachers teaching experiences have a negative correlation to principal’s support.

Table 1.

Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation Between the Study Variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Principal’s involvement	3.69	0.64	—
2. Principal’s support	4.33	0.66	.50**	—
3. School climate	4.22	0.66	.37**	.27**	—
4. School collective efficacy	4.06	0.62	.12*	.28**	.50**	—
5. Teachers teaching experience	13.32	9.07	.08	−12*	.05	.04	—

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Structural Model

The structural model results are presented in Figure 2. Fit values indices showed that the model adjusted to the data (χ² = 132, df = 96, p = .008; Bollen Stine bootstrap = 0.07; TLI = .98; SRMR = .036; AGFI = .96; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .031, 90% CI [0.01, 0.04]). This model accounts for 35% of the variance in the teacher’s perceptions of school collective efficacy to prevent bullying.

Figure 2.

Results of the structural model of the relations between principal’s involvement, support, school climate and school collective efficacy.

Regarding the direct relationships, results indicate that principal involvement in bullying prevention has a positive influence on school climate (β = .34, p < .001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.30]), but it does not influence the school collective efficacy (β = .10, p < .075, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.17]). For this part, principal support was positively associated to school climate (β = .24, p < .001, 95% CI [0.18, 0.29]) and school collective efficacy (β = .29, p < .001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.25]). Finally, school climate had a positive effect (β = .49, p < .001, 95% CI [0.42, 0.55]) on school collective efficacy.

Regarding indirect effects, results indicate that principal involvement had an indirect influence on teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy (β = .19, p < .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.33]), through the positive effects of school climate. Also, principal’s support was indirectly associated to collective efficacy (β = 0.16, p = .039, 95% CI [0.08, 0.26]) by its positive influence on school climate.

Discussion

The study examines the direct and indirect relationships between principals’ involvement and support, school climate and teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. Overall, findings partially support our hypotheses about the direct and indirect relations proposed in the structural model. Below is a discussion of the direct and indirect relationships that were expected compared to what was found.

Principal Involvement (Direct Relations)

Findings partially supported the hypothesis about principal involvement in bullying prevention. Consistent with the literature, these results suggest that principal involvement positively influences school climate (Goddard et al., 2015; Hymel et al., 2015; Price, 2012). However, contrary to what was expected, results show that principals to be involved did not directly affect teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy. This result is contradictory to the current literature demonstrating the positive effects that principals have on school effectiveness (Cansoy & Parlar, 2018; Fancera & Bliss, 2011; Ross & Gray, 2006) and its role in the success of anti-bullying interventions (Ahtola et al., 2012; Dake et al., 2003; Muijs, 2017).

Principal’s Support (Direct Relations)

The study’s results validate the expected hypothesis about the positive influence of a principal’s support on school climate and school collective efficacy. These findings are consistent with the literature that shows principals’ influence in school social relationships and the effectiveness of school intervention programs to prevent bullying (Ansary et al., 2015; Dake et al., 2003; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Results showed that a principal’s informational, instrumental and emotional support of teachers’ antibullying interventions is essential to teachers’ perceptions of school efficacy to manage bullying events.

Mediate Influence of School Climate

The study found that school climate fully mediates the relationship between principals’ involvement and teachers’ perception of school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. This finding suggests that a principal’s involvement only influences teachers’ collective efficacy when generating a positive school social climate. In other words, if principals want to increase school collective efficacy to prevent bullying, their involvement should focus on fostering collaborative and supportive relationships among teachers for the “common good” which includes the care of students (Acosta et al., 2019; Bellibas & Liu, 2018; Goddard et al., 2015; Gülşen & Gülenay, 2014). The study result is in line with other studies that say that the principal has an essential effect on increasing the shared commitment to tasks and goals by improving climate (Aarons et al., 2014; Green et al., 2013).

Moreover, these findings suggest that school social climate partially mediates the relationship between principals’ support and school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. This finding is in line with previous research that suggests that teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy improve when principals promote positive relationships among teachers (Goddard et al., 2015; Hanson & Voight, 2014; Hymel et al., 2015; Price, 2012). Our findings confirm what other scholars (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) have already reported, teachers’ perception of collective efficacy is related to school context characteristics. Although further studies are necessary, a positive school climate increases the perception of kindliness and collaborative relationships among school staff members. These positive relationships encourage psychological variables related to collective efficacy, like well-being, sense of belonging, sharing and commitment of school goals and trust between teachers (Collie et al., 2012; Damanik & Aldridge, 2017; Hosford & O’Sullivan, 2016). Nevertheless, further research is needed to understand the mediational role of school climate and identify how their dimensions impact teachers’ perception of collective efficacy to handle bullying.

Conclusions

From a theoretical perspective, the study confirms the value of a dynamic school improvement model (DASI; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2010; Kyriakides et al., 2014) on bullying research. Consistent with the theory, the findings show that principals, directly and indirectly, influence the school’s collective efficacy in preventing bullying. In this regard, and in line with current research (Hymel et al., 2015; Trach et al., 2013; Williams & Guerra, 2011), data suggests that a principal’s involvement and support to encourage a positive social climate has a stronger influence on teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy than only the principal’s willingness to be involved in bullying prevention. These results indicate that effective principal anti-bullying practices should be to promote a positive relationship inside schools.

From a practical point of view, principals’ involvement and support are related to teachers’ perceptions of school collective efficacy to prevent bullying. In this regard, findings suggest that the effectiveness of whole-school anti-bullying interventions increases by the principal’s involvement and support of teacher practices to prevent bullying. Finally, the study showed that programs to prevent bullying must involve developing principal competencies to promote quality relationships among the participants in the educational process.

Limitations

Despite the present study contributing to the understanding of the principal’s role in promoting collective efficacy to prevent bullying, the results did have limitations that should be considered. The cross-sectional design used in this study does not allow establishing causal relationships. Therefore, longitudinal designs are recommended for the verification of this model. Likewise, teachers’ self-reported measures were used. Future research using observational techniques to collect data on these variables are highly encouraged.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work has been funded by the Research Strengthening Program of the Technological Institute of Sonora (Profapi 2021_0007).

ORCID iD

Angel Alberto Valdés-Cuervo

References

Aarons

G. A.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Farahnak

L. R.

Sklar

(2014). Aligning leadership across systems and organizations to develop a strategic climate for evidence-based practice implementation. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182447

Aasheim

Fossum

Reedtz

Handegård

B. H.

Martinussen

(2020). Examining the incredible years teacher classroom management program in a regular Norwegian school setting: Teacher-reported behavior management practice, problem behavior in classroom and school environment, teacher self- and collective efficacy, and classroom climate. Sage Open, 10(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927422

Acosta

Chinman

Ebener

Malone

P. S.

Phillips

Wilks

(2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived school climate and bullying: A mediator analysis. Journal of School Violence, 18(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1453820

Ahtola

Haataja

Kärnä

Poskiparta

Salmivalli

(2012). For children only? Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.006

Ajay

Mandakini

(2013). Organizational climate as a predictor of teacher effectiveness. European Academic Research, 1(5), 553–568.

Aladenusi

Ayodele

(2014). Counterproductive behaviour and job performance among secondary school teachers: School climate as a mediator. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(8), 198–204.

American Educational Research Association. (2013). Prevention of bullying in school, colleges, and universities. Research report and recommendation. Author. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558195.pdf

Ansary

N. S.

Elias

M. J.

Greene

M. B.

Green

(2015). Guidance for schools selecting antibullying approaches: Translating evidence-based strategies to contemporary implementation realities. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14567534

Arbuckle

J. M.

(2017). IBM^® SPSS^® Amos™ 25 user’s guide. IBM.

10.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

11.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

12.

Bandura

(2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064

13.

Barchia

Bussey

(2011). Individual and collective social cognitive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the contribution of aggression efficacy, moral disengagement, and collective efficacy. Aggressive Behavior, 37(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20375

14.

Bear

G. G.

Yang

Pell

Gaskins

(2014). Validation of a brief measure of teachers’ perceptions of school climate: Relations to student achievement and suspensions. Learning Environments Research, 17(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-014-9162-1

15.

Bellibas

M. S.

Liu

(2018). The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1147608

16.

Bollen

K. A.

Stine

R. A.

(1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002004

17.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039114

18.

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Luppescu

Easton

J. Q.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

19.

Burger

Strohmeier

Spröber

Bauman

Rigby

(2015). How teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.07.004

20.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (4th ed.). Routledge.

21.

Cansoy

Parlar

(2018). Examining the relationship between school principals’ instructional leadership behaviors, teacher self-efficacy, and collective teacher efficacy. The International Journal of Educational Management, 32(4), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-04-2017-0089

22.

Castro Silva

Amante

Morgado

. (2017). School climate, principal support and collaboration among Portuguese teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1295445

23.

Cho

Lee

J. M.

(2018). Explaining physical, verbal, and social bullying among bullies, victims of bullying, and bully-victims: Assessing the integrated approach between social control and lifestyles-routine activities theories. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.018

24.

Church

W. T.

Jaggers

J. W.

Taylor

J. K.

(2012). Neighborhood, poverty, and negative behavior: An examination of differential association and social control theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(5), 1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.02.005

25.

Cohen

Gottlied

B. H.

Underwood

L. G.

(2000). Theoretical and historical perspectives. In Cohen

Underwood

L. G.

Gottlied

B. H.

(Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.

26.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

(2012). School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Education & Psychology, 104(4), 1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029356

27.

Craig

Harel-Fisch

Fogel-Grinvald

Dostaler

Hetland

Simons-Morton

Molcho

de Mato

M. G.

Overpeck

Due

Pickett

; HBSC Violence & Injuries Prevention Focus Group. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9

28.

Creemers

B. P.

Kyriakides

(2010). Using the dynamic model to develop an evidence-based and theory-driven approach to school improvement. Irish Educational Studies, 29(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323310903522669

29.

Dake

J. A.

Price

J. H.

Telljohann

S. K.

(2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 73(5), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2003.tb03599.x

30.

Damanik

Aldridge

(2017). Transformational leadership and its impact on school climate and teachers’ self-efficacy in Indonesian high schools. Journal of School Leadership, 27(2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700205

31.

Ertesvåg

S. K.

Roland

(2015). Professional cultures and rates of bullying. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(2), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.944547

32.

Espelage

D. L.

(2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947216

33.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

Henkel

R. R.

(2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00531

34.

Evans

C. B. R.

Fraser

M. W.

Cotter

K. L.

(2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004

35.

Fancera

S. F.

Bliss

J. R.

(2011). Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher efficacy to improve school achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(3), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.585537

36.

Fullchange

Furlong

M. J.

(2016). An exploration of effects of bullying victimization from a complete mental health perspective. Sage Open, 6(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015623593

37.

Gini

Thornberg

Pozzoli

(2020). Individual moral disengagement and bystander behavior in bullying: The role of moral distress and collective moral disengagement. Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000223

38.

Goddard

R. D.

Goddard

Sook Kim

Miller

(2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925

39.

Goddard

R. D.

Hoy

W. K.

Hoy

A. W.

(2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033003003

40.

Green

A. E.

Albanese

B. J.

Cafri

Aarons

G. A.

(2013). Leadership, organizational climate, and working alliance in a children’s mental health service system. Community Mental Health Journal, 50, 771–777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-013-9668-5

41.

Gulemetova

Drury

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2011). National Education Bullying Studies. Colleagues, 6(2), e11.

42.

Gülşen

Gülenay

G. B.

(2014). The principal and healthy school climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(1), 93S–100S. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.s93

43.

Haataja

Ahtola

Poskiparta

Salmivalli

(2015). A process view on implementing an antibullying curriculum: How teachers differ and what explains the variation. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000121

44.

Hanson

Voight

(2014). The appropriateness of a California student and staff survey for measuring middle school climate (REL 2014-039). U.S. Department of Education; Institute of Education Sciences; National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance; Regional Educational Laboratory West. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

45.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

46.

Holt

M. K.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

Polanin

J. R.

Holland

K. M.

DeGue

Matjasko

J. L.

Wolfe

Reid

(2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135(2), e496–e509. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1864

47.

Hosford

O’Sullivan

(2016). A climate for self-efficacy: The relationship between school climate and teacher efficacy for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(6), 604–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1102339

48.

Hox

J. J.

(2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.

49.

Hymel

McClure

Miller

Shumka

Trach

(2015). Addressing school bullying: Insights from theories of group processes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.008

50.

Hymel

Swearer

S. M.

(2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038928

51.

Kallestad

J. H.

Olweus

(2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program: A multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1), e21. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.621a

52.

Konishi

Miyazaki

Hymel

Waterhouse

(2017). Investigating associations between school climate and bullying in secondary schools: Multilevel contextual effects modeling. School Psychology International, 38(3), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316688730

53.

Kyriakides

Creemers

B. P. M.

Muijs

Rekers-Mombarg

Papastylianou

Van Petegem

Pearson

(2014). Using the dynamic model of educational effectiveness to design strategies and actions to face bullying. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.771686

54.

Lacey

Cornell

D. G.

(2016). School administrator assessments of bullying and state-mandated testing. Journal of School Violence, 15(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.971362

55.

Lai

M. H. C.

Kwok

O. M.

(2015). Examining the rule of thumb of not using multilevel modeling: The “design effect smaller than two” rule. Journal of Experiential Education, 83(3), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.907229

56.

Langford

Bonell

Jones

Pouliou

Murphy

Waters

Komro

Gibbs

Magnus

Campbell

(2015). The World Health Organization’s health promoting schools framework: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 15(130), 130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1360-y

57.

Leithwood

Patten

Jantzi

(2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x10377347

58.

Leithwood

Seashore-Louis

(2012). Linking leadership to student learning. Jossey Bass.

59.

Lezotte Miller

L. W.

Hathaway

S. K.

Passalacqua

D. V.

Brookover

W. B

. (1980). School learning climate and student achievement: A social systems approach to increased student learning. Florida State University.

60.

Lim

(2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the relations of teachers’ perceptions of school organizational climate to their burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.007

61.

S. D.

(2004). The impacts of self-control and social bonds on juvenile delinquency in a national sample of midadolescents. Deviant Behavior, 25(4), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620490441236

62.

Littrell

P. C.

Billingsley

B. S.

Cross

L. H.

(1994). The effects of principal support on special and general educators’ stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259401500505

63.

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

64.

Malinen

O.-P.

Savolainen

(2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012

65.

Marachi

Avi Astor

Benbenishty

(2007). Effects of teacher avoidance of school policies on student victimization. School Psychology International, 28(4), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034307084138

66.

Menesini

Salmivalli

(2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology Health & Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740

67.

Modecki

K. L.

Minchin

Harbaugh

A. G.

Guerra

N. G.

Runions

K. C.

(2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007

68.

Muijs

(2017). Can schools reduce bullying? The relationship between school characteristics and the prevalence of bullying behaviours. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12148

69.

National Institute of Statistic and Geography. (2018). Anuario estadístico y geográfico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2017 [Statistical and geographical yearbook of the United Mexican States 2017]. https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/biblioteca/ficha.html?upc=702825097912

70.

Olsson

Låftman

Modin

(2017). School collective efficacy and bullying behaviour: A multilevel study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1607. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121607

71.

Olweus

(1993). Bullying at school. Blackwell Publishing.

72.

Olweus

Limber

S. P.

(2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus bullying prevention program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x

73.

Pearce

Cross

Monks

Waters

Falconer

(2011). Current evidence of best practice in whole-school bullying intervention and its potential to inform cyberbullying interventions. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.21.1.1

74.

Pepper

Hamilton Thomas

(2002). Making a change: The effects of the leadership role on school climate. Learning Environments Research, 5, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020326829745

75.

Price

H. E.

(2012). Principal-teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x11417126

76.

Rhodes

J. E.

Camic

P. M.

Milburn

Lowe

S. R.

(2009). Improving middle school climate through teacher-centered change. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(6), 711–724. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20326

77.

Robbins

Alvy

H. B.

(2014). The principals’ companion. Strategies to lead schools for students and teachers (4th ed.). SAGE.

78.

Rose

C. A.

Nickerson

A. B.

Stormont

(2015). Advancing bullying research from a social-ecological lens: An introduction to the special issue. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 339–352. https://doi.org/10.17105/15-0134.1

79.

Rosen

Cowan

(2012). A framework for school-wide bullying prevention and safety. National Association of School Psychologist.

80.

Ross

J. A.

Gray

(2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565795

81.

Sampson

R. J.

(2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lesson learned and directions for future inquiry. In Cullen

Wright

P. Blevins

K. R

(Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 149–167). Transaction Publishers.

82.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918

83.

Sapouna

(2010). Collective efficacy in the school context: Does it help explain victimization and bullying among Greek primary and secondary school students? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(10), 1912–1927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354509

84.

Schoeler

Duncan

Cecil

C. M.

Ploubidis

G. B.

Pingault

J.-B.

(2018). Quasi-experimental evidence on short- and long-term consequences of bullying victimization: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1229–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000171

85.

Sercombe

Donnelly

(2013). Bullying and agency: Definition, intervention and ethics. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(4), 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.725834

86.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Education & Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

87.

Skinner

A. T.

Babinski

L. M.

Gifford

E. J.

(2014). Teachers’ expectations and self-efficacy for working with bullies and victims. Psychology in the Schools, 51(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21735

88.

Spillane

J. P.

Kenney

A. W.

(2012). School administration in a changing education sector: The US experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 541–561. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249817

89.

Swearer

S. M.

Hymel

(2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis–stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038929

90.

Trach

Hymel

Shumpka

(2013, April 18–20). Examining the influence of moral disengagement and collective efficacy on bullying: A multilevel analysis [Paper presentation]. Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Meeting, Seattle, WA, United States.

91.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

Hoy

W. K.

(1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

92.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1

93.

Valdés-Cuervo

A. A.

Alcántar-Nieblas

Martínez-Ferrer

Parra-Pérez

(2018). Relations between restorative parental discipline, family climate, parental support, empathy, shame, and defenders in bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.015

94.

Valdés-Cuervo

A. A.

Carlos-Martínez

E. A.

(2014). Relación entre el autoconcepto social, el clima familiar y el clima escolar con el bullying en estudiantes de secundarias [Relationship between social self-concept, family climate and school climate with bullying in secondary students]. Avances de Psicología Latinoamericana, 32(3), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.12804/apl32.03.2014.07

95.

Volungis

A. M.

Goodman

(2017). School violence prevention: Teachers establishing relationships with students using counseling strategies. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017700460

96.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Pas

E. T.

O’Brennan

L. M.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2011). A multilevel perspective on the climate of bullying: Discrepancies among students, school staff, and parents. Journal of School Violence, 10(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.539164

97.

Wang

Berry

Swearer

S. M.

(2013). The critical role of school climate in effective bullying prevention. Theory Into Practice, 52(4), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.829735

98.

Wänström

Pozzoli

Gini

Thornberg

Alsaadi

(2019). Perceived collective efficacy to stop aggression at school: A validation of an Italian and a Swedish version of a scale for adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1414695

99.

Whitted

K. S.

Dupper

D. R.

(2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in schools. Children & Schools, 27(3), 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/27.3.167

100.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(2011). Perceptions of collective efficacy and bullying perpetration in schools. Social Problems, 58(1), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2011.58.1.126

101.

Wolgast

Donat

(2019). Cultural mindset and bullying experiences: An eight-year trend study of adolescents’ risk behaviors, internalizing problems, talking to friends, and social support. Children and Youth Services Review, 99, 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.014

102.

Wolters

C. A.

Daugherty

S. G.

(2007). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Education & Psychology, 99(1), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181

103.

Yoon

Bauman

Choi

Hutchinson

A. S.

(2011). How South Korean teachers handle an incident of school bullying. School Psychology International, 32(3), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311402311

Principal’s Practices and School’s Collective Efficacy to Preventing Bullying: The Mediating Role of School Climate

Abstract

Keywords

School Collective Efficacy

Principals and School Collective Efficacy

The Mediate Influence of School Climate

Current Study

Method

Participants

Measurement

Principal’s involvement

Principal’s support

School climate

School collective efficacy

Control variable

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Structural Model

Discussion

Principal Involvement (Direct Relations)

Principal’s Support (Direct Relations)

Mediate Influence of School Climate

Conclusions

Limitations

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References