Cited by 227Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying.

Naylor, Paul, Cowie, Helen, Cossin, Fabienne, de Bettencourt, Rita, Lemme, Francesca·2006·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Comparison of teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying is important for considering the implications for reports of its incidence in schools, for the study of developmental trends in children's and adolescents' perceptions of the phenomenon and for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions designed to combat bullying. AIMS: To investigate the effects of gender, teacher/pupil status and, for pupils, bullied/non-bullied (target/non-target) status and age on the definition of bullying. SAMPLES: Teachers (N=225: 158 women, 67 men) and pupils (N=1,820: 466 boys, 460 girls were 11-12 years old, year 7, and 415 boys, 479 girls were 13-14 years, year 9) in 51 UK secondary schools participated in a questionnaire survey. A total of 557 of the pupils (117 girls and 117 boys aged 11-12 years, and 197 girls and 126 boys aged 13-14 years) reported that they had been bullied at some time in their present school. METHODS: Written questionnaire responses to the question, 'Say what you think bullying is' have been content analysed to derive two sets of categories, one of bullying behaviour and the other of effects of bullying on the target. RESULTS: Regarding both bullying behaviour and the effects of bullying on the target, teachers - by comparison with pupils - have been found to express more comprehensive ideas in their definitions. Specifically, pupils compared with teachers are more likely to restrict their definitions to direct bullying (verbal and/or physical abuse) and are less likely to refer to social exclusion, a power imbalance in the bully's favour and the bully's intention to cause the target hurt or harm and to feel threatened. Analysis of definitions on the bases of sex, pupil age and target/non-target status show that: targets are more likely than non-targets are to refer to the bully's physically and verbally abusive behaviour, and for Year 7 compared with Year 9 pupils, to suggest that bullies socially exclude targets; girls are more likely than boys are to mention verbal abuse and the effects on the target of 'Feels hurt/harm', but boys are more likely than girls are to construe bullying as involving repetition; older pupils are more likely than younger ones are to refer to a power imbalance in the bully's favour but, for bully targets, younger ones compared with older ones are more likely to invoke the idea of social exclusion in their definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The most important implication of the findings of this study that there are important differences between teachers' and pupils' definitions of bullying is that teachers need to listen carefully to what pupils have to say about bullying and work with and help them to develop their conceptions of the phenomenon. Some teachers, too, need to develop their conceptions of bullying.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000709905x52229

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naylor, P., Cowie, H., Cossin, F., de Bettencourt, R., & Lemme, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Naylor, Paul
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
553-576
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W1980316240
Cited by
227
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 15
FWCI
10.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
bullying, definition of bullying, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, social exclusion, power imbalance, gender differences, age differences, bullying victims, bullying intervention, high school students, verbal abuse, physical abuse
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude, Child, Faculty, Female, Humans, Male, Terminology as Topic, Psychology, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Behavior Disorders, Students, Violence, Observer Variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review