Bullying, Prejudice and School Performance A New Approach: José Leon Crochick Nicole Crochick

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PSYCHOLOGY
José Leon Crochick
Nicole Crochick
Bullying,
Prejudice
and School
Performance
A New Approach
123
SpringerBriefs in Psychology
School Psychology
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10334
José Leon Crochick Nicole Crochick
•
Bullying, Prejudice
and School Performance
A New Approach
123
José Leon Crochick Nicole Crochick
Instituto de Psicologia da Universidade de Escola Nossa Senhora das Graças
São Paulo São Paulo
São Paulo Brazil
Brazil
ISSN 2192-8363 ISSN 2192-8371 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Psychology
ISBN 978-3-319-52403-0 ISBN 978-3-319-52404-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52404-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017931533
© The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Helena and Amanda: essential persons in
our lives
Preface
School education has mainly been directed to the development of students’ skills so
that they can contribute to economic progress; questions about citizenship and the
protection of minorities, as well as the expansion of the political rights that should
exist in a democracy, have also been discussed. However, social violence is a
persistent problem in the world. In Brazil, the number of murders per year is
equivalent to countries at war—approximately 50,000 people. The frequency of
sexual abuse of children, adolescents, women and people with different sexual
orientations is also relevant. Certainly, school education should combat all forms of
violence, and in Brazil, the number of educated people has expanded considerably.
However, violence remains. Two forms of violence—bullying and prejudice—
contribute to the evolving persecution of people, belonging to minorities or not,
who cannot defend themselves. There are many published studies concerning these
forms of violence, but only a few are able to distinguish one from another. In fact,
as indicated by the survey data reported in this book, both are related, although not
as directly as we may suppose, and there are specific characteristics of bullying and
prejudice that need to be known so that specific educational measures can confront
them. This is one of the purposes of this book. Another theme that is insufficiently
explored in other studies is the relationship between bullying, prejudice and the two
hierarchies that exist side by side in schools—the official hierarchy, which distin-
guishes good and bad students based on their academic performance, and the
unofficial hierarchy, which is characterised by the distinction between those who
excel in dating, fighting and team sports and those who do not excel in any of these
activities. In general, there are studies that investigate the relationship between
popularity and the bullying of students, segregating this form of violence from the
official hierarchy, although there is evidence that school violence impedes learning;
the data found in the research presented in this book in fact shows the relationship
between these variables: the authors of violence tend to be those who stand out in
the unofficial hierarchy and/or those who do not stand out in the official hierarchy;
the victims are inclined to be those with low performance in both hierarchies,
especially in the unofficial. The importance of factors such as autonomy from the
school authority and the ideology of authoritarianism for bullying and prejudice is
vii
viii Preface
also understudied. This book presents data gathered by surveys conducted between
2010 and 2014, with 274 students from public schools in the city of São Paulo at
the end of elementary school II on the issues announced. The results are discussed
considering not only the theoretical perspective of authors of the Frankfurt School
of Critical Theory—especially Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert
Marcuse—but also considering the current literature on the subject. These authors
developed fundamental work for understanding the violence resulting from the
existing fascism in the first part of the last century and stressed the importance of
education and democracy in combating it. Through the results and the theoretical
discussion, the book presents proposals for combating school violence. What dis-
tinguishes this book from others on the subject is the concern with the school
organisation, which, instead of avoiding this type of violence, may also contribute
to fostering it. By posing these questions and analysing them, the book attempts to
help teachers and students develop a more peaceful and democratic coexistence.
We would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—
CNPq) for the Research Productivity grant (Process: 306038/2014-5) that enabled
the research reported in this book: School Violence: discrimination, bullying and
responsibility. We would also like to thank our colleagues from the Laboratory for
Studies on Prejudice at the University of São Paulo’s Psychology Institute who
collected the data: Marisa Feffermann, Ricardo Casco, Alex Sandro Corrêa, Pedro
Fernando da Silva, Cintia C. Freller, Aline Costa Carrenho, Gianlucca Vergian
Dalenogare, Hugo Seiki Shimura, Lucas Stefano de Lima Alves and Lenara Spedo
Spagnuolo.
It is important to note that some of the research data were presented in the
following articles: ‘Autonomy front the School Authority, Bullying and School
Performance’, to be published by the Revista Estudos de Psicologia in 2017, and
‘Hierarchy, Violence and Bullying Among Students of Public Middle Schools’,
published by the journal Paidéia in 2016.
São Paulo, Brazil José Leon Crochick

Nicole Crochick
Contents
1 Two Forms of School Violence: Bullying and Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Social and Psychological Factors of Violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 School Hierarchies and the Reproduction of Social Violence . . . . . 4
1.3 Bullying, Performance and Popularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Prejudice, Bullying and Authoritarian Personality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Bullying, Authority and Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.6 Inclusive Education and the Fight Against School Violence . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2 Objectives and Research Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.1 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.2 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.2.3 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 Analysis and Discussion of the Survey Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1 Relationships Among Perceived School Performance,
Bullying and Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1.1 School Performance and Violence—Self-evaluation . . . . . . 45
3.1.2 School Performance and Violence—Peer Evaluation. . . . . . 46
3.1.3 School Performance and Bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.1.4 School Performance and Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice and Adherence
to the Ideology of Authoritarianism and Autonomy
from the School Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
ix
x Contents
3.2.1 Relationships Between Bullying and Adherence

to the Ideology of Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 53
3.2.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Autonomy
from the School Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 54
3.2.3 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice . . . . . . .... 56
3.3 Characteristics of the Perpetrators and Victims of School
Violence, Individual Motivations for the Aggression
and Feelings Caused in the Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 57
3.4 Hierarchies, Prejudice and School Violence Against Students
in an Inclusive Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 60
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 64
4 Proposals for Addressing School Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix: Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Chapter 1
Two Forms of School Violence: Bullying
and Prejudice
1.1 Social and Psychological Factors of Violence
Violence is a longstanding concern and inherent to a conflictive and contradictory

society. Its members, who belong to different social classes, have divergent inter-
ests, which often bring them into conflict with one another. However, violence does
not only occur in the social struggle between classes, as described by Marx (1984),
although this factor is essential to the occurrence of violence in a more direct or
subtle form. According to Freud (1986), there is another essential factor inherent to
life in general, and the individual in particular, which is expressed as the death
drive: there is a tendency that leads people to want to eliminate all tension—both
interior and exterior—that would explain the aggressiveness1 aimed at oneself and
others. This tension is enhanced by the suffering caused to humans by three sources:
(1) a feeling of the body’s fragility; (2) an immeasurable force of nature; and
(3) social relationships. Kant (1992) argues in the same direction. For him, this
tension is inherent to humans, who have a natural ‘unsocial sociability’: they
get along well with others and, simultaneously, are happy when everything is
exactly how they want it to be, which generates resistance from others. When
Marcuse (1981) analyses the Freudian argument, he states that a society that gen-
erates less tension will have less of a presence of the death drive, i.e. violence: a life
full of pleasure without threats and oppression, which is possible in a society with
abundant and egalitarian material production in which an individual has the guar-
antee that his or her loved ones will be able to have the same happiness and freedom
as someone who lived very well for a long time, does not require violence in any of
its forms. The concepts developed by Marx and Freud allowed the thinkers of the
Frankfurt School, who will be this work’s main theoretical reference, to criticise
1
For the purposes of this book, violence and aggression are considered synonymous terms, and
both are considered in their contradictions. When violence is guided by rational reasons, it is an
important part of the fight against injustice; this injustice is also a form of violence but an irrational
form.
© The Author(s) 2017 1

J.L. Crochick and N. Crochick, Bullying, Prejudice and School Performance,
SpringerBriefs in School Psychology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52404-7_1
2 1 Two Forms of School Violence: Bullying and Prejudice
society without ignoring the psychological moment; although this moment did not
immediately create fascism, which was made possible by social determinations, it
allowed it to be maintained.2
Thus, we have social and psychological variables involved in the discomfort that
causes and is caused by violence. Violence is present in social institutions and
individuals: in institutions, it is mediated by the social hierarchy that classifies and
ranks people according to their social class and skills; when the social hierarchy
classifies people as inferior and superior, it makes the former submissives and the
latter masters. It should be noted that almost everyone in the hierarchy dominates
someone and is dominated by others. At an individual level, this situation is
expressed by sadomasochism, which in this case evokes pleasure through domi-
nating and submitting, as argued by Horkheimer and Adorno (1985). However, it
should be added that the existence of the hierarchy in the sphere of production and
individual formation is not necessarily repressive because it can generate the basic
conditions for freedom. The supposed authority in the hierarchy may be rational
and aid with business ventures and training courses that enable an individual to
achieve the basic conditions for a life that is independent of repetitive, mechanical
and meaningless work and that shape individuals who are deeply critical because
they have solid knowledge for doing so.
As Adorno (2004) stated, the relationship between the social structure and the
psychological constitution is not immediate, indicating that society leads people to
psychological regressions, which are necessary for the perpetuation of this society
at every historical moment. According to this author, in every era, society has
strengthened in individuals the psychological regression that results in the char-
acteristics that are necessary for collective work; the neuroses that can generate
psychological suffering are thus used for social maintenance. Therefore, it is
impossible to consider psychological suffering and disorders without relating them
to the force of society—derived from its need to be maintained—and how its
institutions, such as family and school, are fundamental to individual formation and
collaborate with psychological suffering and social reproduction.
Society is expressed by culture, which produces ways of explaining and justi-
fying the existence of society as it is and, contradictorily, enables the reflection that
allows for social change. Culture, as an expression of society, mediates the social
constitution of the individual. The more independent from society that culture can
be, the more it can criticise it and enable it to change its unjust aspects; the less it
can be differentiated from the existing social interests, the more it will contribute to
the maintenance of power relations as they are. A culture that allows reflections
envisioning social changes and that does not deny social contradictions and existing
psychological conflicts needs concepts, images and ideas that attempt to express
2
Naturally, the work of thinkers belonging to the Frankfurt School or the Critical Theory of
Society cannot be reduced to the thought of Marx and Freud because these authors used concepts
from different philosophical systems, sociological and psychological theories and aesthetics to
make their critiques. However, this addendum does not reduce the importance of Marxist and
Freudian production in their works.
1.1 Social and Psychological Factors of Violence 3
them. According to Horkheimer and Adorno (1985) and Marcuse (1982), the
culture that revealed a relative autonomy from society existed during the liberal
period, which occurred primarily in the nineteenth century, with competitive cap-
italism. It eventually became monopoly capitalism or, more precisely, a managed
society, in which individuals are constrained to their immediate survival. As much
of the culture becomes the culture industry—implying that cultural production is a
mere commodity—it becomes poorer, less differentiated from the social interests
that it strengthens. Advertising, which becomes its base, also contributes to this
impoverishment, although this cultural impoverishment is defended in the name of
allowing more people to take advantage of cultural goods. These goods, however,
which are external to individuals, are disposable and thus do not allow a substantial
formation. In addition to being disposable, they raise the notion that their appear-
ance depletes the object being presented, which is no longer considered in terms of
its origin and modification. As in the phenomenon of prejudice, which is discussed
below, what is historical becomes natural; what is temporal is reduced to its
appearance in space. Thus, it follows that it is now very difficult for individuals to
differentiate themselves to be able to reflect on what is happening to them as well as
to use learned terms and incorporated references to express what is bothering them
through the violence that is experienced and/or inflicted.
As noted above, Adorno (1995a) and Bleichmar (2008) indicate that there is one
type of necessary violence—rational violence—which is opposed to the other forms
of violence, which are present to maintain social domination; this type of violence
acts against this domination. Thus, criticism should be directed towards the type of
violence that destroys culture and annihilates the individual. Violence against
people is the violence that is turned against time and against the idea of a project. It
is the violence that reduces people to the present, eliminating the temporal
dimension of life, given that it is this dimension that allows us to understand both
societal and individual history. Bleichmar (2008) draws attention to two determi-
nants of violence: resentment due to unfulfilled promises and a lack of future
prospects. One brings disillusionment: something that was expected but that does
not occur, undermining trust in others. The other leads to disenchantment: a lack of
investment in life, which points to Adorno’s (1992) phrase at the beginning of the
book Minima Moralia: ‘Life does not live’. This type of violence, which is not
immediately physical, is defined as being cultural, even though it is expressed by
individuals. It may lead to another form of violence that aims to change this
situation; regardless, it is reactive.
Of the two situations highlighted by Bleichmar (2008), it is important to note
that according to Horkheimer and Adorno’s (1985) analysis of anti-Semitism,
resentment is a feeling attributed to those who turn against Jews because they, as a
representative of trade more generally, allegedly prevent them from having some-
thing that they desire. A lack of future prospects, in turn, points to a closed world
without alternatives or in which the only options involve choosing the lesser evil,
which is inherent to a society whose bureaucratic rationality dispenses with indi-
vidual reason.
The greater the technical rationality of society is, the less the individuals develop
their reason—and therefore find it difficult to understand their desires and fears—
and the more they know how to achieve their desires and defend themselves from
what is causing their fears. This situation generates an unspecified discomfort,
against which it is difficult to react effectively to eliminate or at least mitigate it.
Freud (1943) argues that neuroses come from the non-compensation of desires that
are delayed in exchange for the ‘civilised life’: the sacrifice is not justified, which is
the reason for the resentment of unfulfilled promises described above. He argues,
for example, that people who do not want to have children (one of the forms of a
future) have little regard for life; they cannot enjoy life in such a way as to want
others who can procreate and love to be able to enjoy it. It is not that these people
are unable to love but rather that they do not find the object appropriate for their
appreciation. According to this author, culture is thus one of the determinants of
violence.
1.2 School Hierarchies and the Reproduction of Social

Violence
If violence has been a daily constant, school is an institution that aims to develop
civility in its students, namely, the possibility that individuals can coexist and
discuss their differences peacefully through collectively accepted norms. There is
no doubt that we need these norms, much as relations between different countries
must have their own norms to achieve ‘perpetual peace’, according to Kant (1992).
Laws, rules and norms are established in contradictory and conflicting social
situations, and individuals also hold on to some quota of violence to address their
own suffering, which originates in renunciations of their desires, a renunciation that
is necessary to live in a community. Thus, the tension between the tendency of
human relationships towards progress and social and psychological conflicts con-
tinues. As with any other social institution, schools are no different: violence is also
present.
Some authors distinguish ‘violence in schools’ from ‘school violence’ (Paula
and D’Aura-Tardeli 2009). The former refers to the presence of violence that
originates outside school walls but manifests within them; the latter refers to the
violence that schools create or strengthen through their rules. In our view, this
distinction can attribute to ‘school violence’ an absence of any relationship with
society that is not real because what schools value or not as well as their objectives
and methods are not fully determined by them. In this sense, Adorno (1995a)
believes that teachers are viewed negatively because they do the ‘dirty work’ that
other institutions refuse to do: that of domesticating children and adolescents. This
author indicates that there are two hierarchies in schools: a hierarchy that classifies
the worst and best students, according to school performance, and an unofficial
hierarchy that classifies them according to practical and physical skills, taking
1.2 School Hierarchies and the Reproduction of Social Violence 5
virility as one of its criteria. According to him, fascism allied itself to the unofficial
hierarchy against the official hierarchy. Furthermore, this author argues that the
failure of education can also be illustrated by the existence of this dual school
hierarchy: the official hierarchy, evaluated by grades and observable performance,
and the unofficial hierarchy, in which physical strength and practical character
prevail. The ambiguity of the spiritual, intellectual and sensitive evokes resentment
in those who fail to develop these characteristics. Those who have more strength
and physical ability and excel in team sports, fights and dating are valued by a
system—fascism—that cannot coexist with this ambiguity, which is also repre-
sented by teachers; although teachers are respected for their knowledge, they are
despised by fascists for appearing to not know how to care for themselves in a
competitive world that despises anything that appears to be weak. If man is able to
dominate nature, then nature is considered weak from the perspective of the indi-
vidual who controls it, and everything that reminds man of weakness evokes the
desire to dominate. Those who are submissive evoke the aggressors’ desire for them
to be even more submissive. For these aggressors, those who cannot survive on
their own must be exterminated. It is not by chance that adaptation to the existing
environment is emphasised as a value even by theories in developmental psy-
chology. Fascism’s contempt for thought and appreciation for strength thus
encourages physical strength to repress intelligence. This phenomenon illustrates
that favouring the ‘physical hierarchy’ over the ‘intellectual hierarchy’ is not
specific to schools but rather the culture that expresses an unequal society. If school
mechanisms are mediated by society and interests linked to drug trafficking, police
conflicts, theft, etc. are not inherent to this institution but rather occur in them, then
all other forms of violence also do not originate in schools: they are expressions of
social violence, which acquire specific school-related characteristics.
According to Crochick (2012), this society has a hierarchical structure, which is
expressed in: the rich and the poor, the most capable and the incapable, the pow-
erful and the submissive, and the most and least intelligent. The social division that
distinguishes manual and intellectual labour—devaluing the former in favour of the
latter—contributes to the reproduction of the class structure, as described by Marx
(1984). The domination–submission relationship would thus be present in every
hierarchy. The official school hierarchy, however, contains the possibility of
reflection, which can, according to Horkheimer and Adorno (1985), reduce violence
by recognising it, as they propose in the fight against the destruction produced by
society itself. Thus, in this hierarchy, there can be self-criticism by those who are at
the top; this is also possible in the unofficial hierarchy through rules that allow
identification with the loser, which may occur in team sports (Adorno 1995b). The
two hierarchies thus offer both the possibility of the domination–submission rela-
tionship and its criticism.
School violence, according to Galvão et al. (2010), is sometimes practiced
through the attitudes of the institution’s educators, some of whom contribute to the
formation of school hierarchies among students: a public comparison of students’
performance, the expulsion of students or the teacher’s being sarcastic or yelling at
his or her students.
As Garandeau et al. (2013) demonstrates, there is little research on the rela-

tionship between hierarchical status and bullying. According to these authors,
hierarchical status can promote social order and harmony and contribute to a better
organisation of activities, which can occur when there is an appropriate division of
labour among complementary individual skills. Zwaan et al. (2013) indicate that the
need to maintain hierarchical status is due to survival and reproduction and that, to
that end, physical abilities and attractiveness are important. However, hierarchies
can also generate violence, as emphasised by Ahn et al. (2010), who call attention
to the type of hierarchical structure that may configure school classes: when there is
a hierarchy with fixed roles, violence among peers is more likely to be triggered
than in more egalitarian groups. These studies reveal another contradiction of
hierarchies that is different from what was noted above: they can contribute to the
advancement of social activities or prevent them from occurring satisfactorily.
School performance and popularity are expressions of hierarchies that, in the
perspective adopted here, are present in school structures: school hierarchies pre-
pare students to occupy their place in the social hierarchy and thus encourage
competition in both the official and unofficial hierarchies. Although the existence of
these structures is inferred by school performance and individual popularity, they
are institutional and, therefore, social.
According to studies by Strøm et al. (2013), Mehta et al. (2013) and Juvonen
et al. (2011), school violence decreases student involvement in school and becomes
an obstacle to good academic performance. The relationship between bullying and
school performance is indicated by Lopes Neto (2005): those who do not like
school tend to have a more unsatisfactory performance, whereas those who have
positive relationships with classmates are more likely to achieve a satisfactory level
of learning. This relationship also indicates that the aggressor tends to be popular;
he adds that the aggressor is dissatisfied with school and is likely to drop out. There
are also those who are perpetrators and victims of bullying, who are generally
unpopular and strongly rejected by their classmates.
According to Crochick (2012), phenomena such as bullying and prejudice
appear to reflect the existence of school hierarchies established by students more
directly than the other types of school violence. According to Adorno (1995a), the
reason is that they focus on targets who are considered weak and who lack the
power to fight back, i.e. students at the bottom of both the official and unofficial
hierarchies as well as those at the top of the official hierarchy, considering our
culture’s ambivalence towards intellectual performance, as noted above based on
Adorno’s (1995a) text.
During the history of our civilisation, intelligence—and the instruments created
by it—has gradually been replacing the strength required to alter nature for the
reproduction of the species. According to Horkheimer and Adorno (1985), how-
ever, the need to dominate nature has not been surmounted, and therefore, intelli-
gence still represents a strength in the survival of the fittest. The weakness that the
prejudiced person attributes to his or her victim is the result of a negative identi-
fication: individuals who cannot accept certain fears, desires or ideals as their own
assign blame to others for expressing them and therefore persecute them
1.2 School Hierarchies and the Reproduction of Social Violence 7
(Horkheimer and Adorno 1985). The need to be strong is inherent to a society that
cultivates survival, or at least the privilege of the strongest. Weakness harkens back
to past stages that the civilised individual wants to forget and is a reminder of the
nature that the individual is presumed to have conquered (see Horkheimer and
Adorno 1985). When strength is replaced by reason in the Enlightenment move-
ment (Aufkarüng), reason and enlightenment are viewed as strengths, and they
devalue what they ostensibly overcame, with the result that intelligence can be used
in service of the irrational. Conversely, those who value physical strength resent
reason.
This contradiction in which reason and the Enlightenment movement are both
strength and weakness harkens back to the contradiction of the school hierarchy
described above: as a substitute for physical strength, it is still a strength that not
only constructs but also destroys. Nevertheless, by its very nature, it can overcome
this need to destroy and dominate the will of others. According to these authors,
domination over nature paradoxically means submitting to it, and when it is
recognised as domination, the ‘lordly gaze’ is lost. Because progress involves both
domination and liberation, nothing should be thought of only as its negation;
domination itself needs to be overcome, retaining what can be used for liberation.
Horkheimer and Adorno (1985) do not shy away from noting that only the act of
renouncing the desire for domination would make peace possible among people but
the existence of hierarchies based on strength reproduces domination, which is
clearly expressed in bullying.
1.3 Bullying, Performance and Popularity
The discussion on school bullying is recent, but its existence, according to Fante
(2005), is not new; Grossi and Santos (2009) and Voors (2006) do not fail to
associate this phenomenon with social violence. Pinheiro and Williams (2009) and
Antunes and Zuin (2008) indicate that violence began to become more severe in the
1980s: before that point, it was expressed through property damage; now, it is
expressed as interpersonal violence, including aggression against teachers and staff
and intimidation by gangs present in schools.
School bullying has been the object of analysis in many studies, and albeit with
some distinctions, it is generally defined as the physical, symbolic or sexual
aggression that a student or a group of students perpetrates for an extended period
of time against those who cannot properly defend themselves to stop the aggression
(Antunes and Zuin 2008). Their victims are typically individuals who appear weak
and unable to defend themselves (Pinheiro and Williams 2009; Fante 2005; Mehta
et al. 2013; Albuquerque et al. 2013; Crochick 2014).
According to Freire et al. (2006) and Voors (2006), some adults view bullying as
children’s games, which children must overcome or solve for themselves, and
believe that because they are ‘games’, they cause no harm; they sometimes consider
it natural and necessary, particularly for boys. Some of the students interviewed in
the study conducted by the CEATS (2010), especially the males, also consider
bullying to be a game, unlike the girls, who tend to be hurt. Bullying seems to begin
as a game that turns into aggression. In the attitude that considers bullying to be a
game, the values of strength and virility can be emphasised to the detriment of
human rights and the development of sensitivity.
If the distinction between ‘games’ and violence is clear for some, then one must
remember that jokes about people with disabilities, immigrants or black people can
be expressions of subtle prejudice, which is a form of violence (Meertens and
Pettigrew 1999). In this regard, there is an interesting relationship established
between bullying and prejudice by Antunes and Zuin (2008) and Grossi and Santos
(2009), who were the first to indicate that prejudice is the foundation of bullying;
the latter study shows the presence of prejudice as one form of school violence. The
distinction between these two forms of violence—bullying and prejudice—is made
below. For now, we define the phenomenon of school bullying.
School bullying can generate diverse psychological consequences in those who
experience it, ranging from deep anguish to murder and suicide (Pinheiro and
Williams 2009; Fante 2005; Freire et al. 2006; Voors 2006). As can be observed,
the consequences of this phenomenon should not be associated with mere games or
situations that are easily surmounted. Based on several studies, Freire et al. (2006)
argue that victims of bullying tend to become depressed and have low self-esteem.
Regarding aggressors, they confirm the idea that young people who are aggressive
with their peers are at greater risk of having other behavioural problems later on,
such as criminality, substance abuse or aggressive behaviour in the family.
Antunes and Zuin (2008) demonstrate that there are three types of bullying:
direct and physical (physical assaults, theft, destruction of classmates’ objects and
sexual exploitation); direct and verbal (insults, nicknames, ‘poking fun’ and dis-
criminatory and offensive comments); and indirect (gossip, rumours and threats).
A number of studies have revealed variables that are linked to either the practice
of intimidation or the targets. Pinheiro and Williams (2009) cite Berdondini and
Smith (1996), who evaluate aspects of family cohesion in students who were vic-
tims of bullying, students who were bullies and students uninvolved in bullying.
The authors conclude that the father’s absence made it more likely for the student to
be a bully and that family affection—expressed by overprotection—would be
related to the victim of the hostility. Freire et al. (2006) present different consid-
erations: there seems to be a relationship between students who are victims and
families with one or no parents present, whereas students who are aggressors tend
to live with both parents.
Bullies tend to come from families that harm them (Fante 2005; Voors 2006;
Antunes and Zuin 2008). Based on four different studies, Fante (2005) indicates that
family violence can be a cause of bullying, which is supported by the opinions of
students and staff that were collected in these studies as well as the opinions of
experts. The teachers interviewed in the study by the CEATS (2010) also consider
the domestic violence factor to be important for understanding the behaviour of
those who bully. In their study, Pinheiro and Williams (2009) examine the rela-
tionship between domestic violence—both exposure to violence between parents
1.3 Bullying, Performance and Popularity 9
and violence directly aimed at children—and the role played in bullying (aggressor,
target/aggressor, target) and conclude that mere exposure to violence between
parents is not related to the practice of intimidation whereas direct violence turns
them into targets and aggressors in the case of boys and aggressors in the case of
girls.
In the study by Pinheiro and Williams (2009) as well as those reported by Fante
(2005), almost half of the participants say they have participated in bullying.
According to the study by the CEATS (2010), approximately 10% of students
engage in bullying and another 10% suffer from it. It occurs primarily—but not
only—in the fifth or sixth grades of elementary school, and boys have a higher
frequency as the perpetrators of aggression and as victims. The researchers in this
Brazilian study indicate that the different subjects interviewed—students, teachers
and parents—have difficulty distinguishing between mistreatment and bullying;
additionally, some victims may be ashamed to say that they were bullied, and
therefore, they assume that the frequency of the phenomenon should be higher than
what is observed.
Veiga Simão et al. (2004) indicate that most students—almost 70%—have
observed bullying and are ‘passive’ towards the violence that they see. It is likely
that some of them satisfy their own aggressive desires in that manner and that others
identify with those being harmed. According to the study developed by the CEATS
(2010), this identification is expressed by the students who observe bullying. The
desire to humiliate the other is experienced by the perpetrator and the person who
supports the attack, even though he or she is not harming the victim directly. Fante
(2005) notes satisfaction with aggression, in which the victim’s weakness and cries
cause a feeling of superiority in the aggressor, who can thus satisfy his or her
impulses for revenge and increase his or her resentment. According to this author,
this is also true for those who support the aggression and for observers who can take
advantage of that same feeling. According to Voors (2006), observers of bullying
may feel scared of also becoming victims if they intervene to stop the violence and
thus feel helpless.
A factor related to school violence and the school hierarchy—as well as bul-
lying, as a form of this violence—is popularity, which, as indicated, is a sign of the
existence of hierarchies among students, in this case, primarily the unofficial
hierarchy. Studies (Li and Wright 2014; Zwaan et al. 2013; Ahn et al. 2010;
de Bruyn et al. 2010) have revealed two ways of examining popularity: perceived
popularity, which is generally obtained by classmates’ nominations in response to
the question ‘Who is popular?’; and peer preference, or sociometric popularity,
which is obtained by classmates’ nominations of who they would like to have as
friends or spend time with in collaborative activities, such as studying or working
together. Peer acceptance refers to how much they want to interact with each
student, whereas perceived popularity is measured by visibility, prestige and
dominance. Caravita and Cillessen (2012), Li and Wright (2014) and Ahn et al.
(2010) show that adolescents who aim to be perceived as popular among their peers
are more prone to violence and that those who aim for preference among their
classmates are less often nominated as being violent.
Perpetrators of bullying generally have low social preference but high perceived
popularity (Garandeau et al. 2014). According to de Bruyn et al. (2010), both the
perpetrators and the victims of aggression have had low acceptance among peers;
the former have high perceived popularity, whereas victims have a low score for
preference and popularity. Additionally, according to these authors, there is an
interaction between the two forms of popularity: popular adolescents and those who
are more accepted among their peers are less aggressive than unaccepted and
popular adolescents; being unaccepted and unpopular predisposes them to being a
victim, whereas being accepted and popular does not. Fante (2005) adds that the
aggressor wants to be noticed and is seeking recognition, which may be associated
with the search for popularity.
Levandoski and Cardoso (2013) find that the adolescents who participated in
their study tended to judge the bullies as being more attractive. According to these
students, the perpetrators of aggression are more popular in the classroom and excel
in activities involving physical skills, thus illustrating the existence of the unofficial
hierarchy; those at the top tend to be perpetrators of aggression are popular and are
perceived as being attractive people. These researchers also note that the victims of
violence tend to perform better in Portuguese language classes. This result indicates
the existence of the official hierarchy and the conflict between students who are at
the top of the two hierarchies, corroborating the contempt for intellectuality alluded
to above and the appreciation for physical strength. It should thus be expected that
students who excel in academic subjects can also be targets of school violence,
although they may sometimes also be its perpetrators. The ambiguity towards the
intellectual that was noted above—which in fascism, according to Adorno (1995a),
seeks to eliminate everything that does not represent strength out of contempt—
may cause those with good school performance to be envied and despised by those
who do not have it; this performance may represent the valorisation of what is
‘weak’, which is simultaneously desired and despised by those who are unable to
attain it. The student with good school performance who is not attractive or does not
excel in physical activities thus seems to be an appropriate target of hostility for
those who cannot achieve good grades, whereas the student who excels in his or her
physical prowess and/or beauty but has poor academic performance can be either
someone who inflicts different types of violence on the weak or a model who serves
as a counterpoint to intellectual development.
According to the study developed by Strøm et al. (2013), as well as those
developed by Mehta et al. (2013) and Juvonen et al. (2011), if there are disputes, in
the form of bullying, between students belonging to the two hierarchies, reversed
relationships between school violence and academic performance are found: the
higher the first is, the worse the latter is.
Kowalski and Limber (2013) also arrive at these results: those involved in
bullying as either perpetrators or victims of aggression have worse academic per-
formance than those who do not engage in this form of violence.
These studies show a correlation between the two variables but do not define
which is determinant, which strengthens the idea that hierarchies are, at the limit,
mutually exclusive: those who excel in one will find it difficult to excel in the other.
1.3 Bullying, Performance and Popularity 11
Competition in both hierarchies appears to be guided by the valorisation of those

who perform better in the activities being evaluated. If one of the functions of a
school education is to civilise individuals for social coexistence, then this compe-
tition must be understood as a contest in which the rules are socially established and
accepted. Because both the rules (Galvão et al. 2010) and the values assigned to the
winners and losers are generally not discussed, schools reproduce something that
comes from outside their walls. School hierarchies should strengthen social hier-
archies as an end in themselves: as a method of classifying students and selecting
the fittest in a clear process of social Darwinism. Individual competition is thus
socially incited and strengthened in school life.
Because school education should also prepare individuals to contribute in soli-
darity with others, it creates a contradiction between collaboration and competition.
In this sense, Caravita and Cillessen (2012) show that the perceived popularity of
students is associated with personal objectives whereas the peer acceptance of
classmates is related to common goals and preferences. Because there are disputes
between groups, it is assumed that solidarity is directed towards group members
and that competition is directed towards those outside the group. However, if this is
based on a psychoanalytical understanding (Freud 1993), then it only occurs on the
surface: the common goal that unites a group of individuals (a leader, an ideology)
falls apart when it is shown to be false and leads to a lack of control and hostility
among its members once the leadership and/or ideology are called into question.
Freud (1986) calls this phenomenon the ‘narcissism of small differences’, which
consists of amplifying or even creating differences among people belonging to other
groups and those belonging to their own group, allowing love and respect to be
directed towards those in their own group and hatred and contempt to be directed
towards those belonging to other groups. This phenomenon, which can be observed
between the populations of neighbouring countries or fans of rival sports teams,
implies the poor development of an individual consciousness of one’s own prin-
ciples and values, i.e. little individual autonomy, which causes the individual to
constantly need to follow external guidelines to make decisions about his or her
own life. As shown below, this phenomenon is related to prejudice and autonomy in
different ways. A society that promotes justice, equality and freedom cannot ignore
the relationship between individual consciousness and social consciousness: the
interests and needs of others should be considered as one’s own without negating
one’s own interests and needs, which should also be defended by others. Thus, only
the establishment of humanity can evoke the cooperation and solidarity that are not
directed towards a common adversary but rather the freedom and happiness of all.
However, given that the question of individual self-preservation in this society is
part of the development of personal autonomy and because the economic system is
defined by competition, self-preservation overrides solidarity.
Given that the studies cited here indicate that perceived popularity is associated
with the perpetrators of bullying and Levandoski and Cardoso (2013) show that
good performance in academic subjects is associated with the targets of school
violence, it can thus be assumed that students who excel at the top of the unofficial
hierarchy should be popular whereas those who are discriminated against at the
bottom are unpopular. In the official hierarchy, unpopularity may also be associated
with those at the top, without popularity’s necessarily being associated with those at
the bottom, unless they are at the top of another hierarchy.
Naturally, the model currently encouraged by society is one of intellectual and
physical development; however, in this case, according to Adorno (1995a), they
both pertain to the ‘healthy boy’ and the ‘spontaneous girl’, who are opposed to
differentiation and intellectual development because their main objective is adap-
tation. Adaptation is certainly necessarily, but it is not sufficient for the formation of
an individual with the autonomy to think about the transformations that are nec-
essary to make society just. In a society that encourages competition for the fittest to
excel, adaptation—whether it refers to technical thought or physical ability—means
strength to overcome opponents. The body and mind that are formed for emanci-
pation must be able to express the violence and suffering that exist but in the
non-destructive form of art and science.
1.4 Prejudice, Bullying and Authoritarian Personality
As noted above, bullying and prejudice are distinct phenomena, although some-
times they can be associated. They both involve a target that appears weak and
unable to defend him/herself against violence, but even here there is a distinction:
the target of bullying is anyone who can be made to submit, whereas prejudice
generally requires a justification for discrimination. Both phenomena can be
repeatedly aimed towards the same targets over a long period of time and can also
be characterised by stronger or smarter groups and individuals dominating others.
However, in the case of prejudice, even weak individuals may develop them, and
discrimination occurs more subtly.
According to Krech et al. (1975), prejudice is an attitude that has a cognitive
dimension, an affective dimension and a tendency towards action: the cognitive part
refers to the justification for the prejudice, generally based on stereotypes; the
affective dimension can be expressed by aggression, excessive protection (affection)
or indifference towards the target; and the tendency towards action is generally
associated with subtle or blatant discrimination Meertens and Pettigrew(1999),
which can manifest itself as segregation and/or marginalisation.
The psychic need associated with prejudice involves projecting—in the psy-
choanalytic sense of the term—thoughts, feelings and characteristics that the
individual cannot accept in him/herself onto his or her victims. This projection may
be more or less selective in terms of what is attributed to the target. In Jahoda and
Ackerman’s (1969) study on anti-Semitism, the authors argue that hatred for Jews is
sometimes justified by specific reasons: people do not like Jews because they ‘only
appreciate money’, are ‘promiscuous’, etc. Naturally, what is being projected onto
the target is not their own characteristic but that of the prejudiced individual. At
other times, the anti-Semite does not allege any specific reason for disliking Jews,
and this lack of specificity would move the phenomenon of prejudice closer to that
1.4 Prejudice, Bullying and Authoritarian Personality 13
of bullying, for which there is no justification for choosing the target other than the
possibility of their submission to the aggressor’s will.
Crochick (2015) differentiates both forms of violence: bullying is more indis-
criminate than prejudice, which is directed towards specific targets and justified
imaginatively; it is perpetrated by individuals who are more regressive—from a
psychic perspective—than individuals who develop prejudices. Non-selective
projection, or less-established prejudice, may thus be associated with bullying. It
also seems to be more compatible with a homogeneous culture, which, through
(false) formation, creates insensitive individuals who have difficulty expressing
their desires; this may lead them to a more diffuse form of violence compared to
prejudice. The latter requires ‘more developed’ reasons to be performed, which
implies the need to provide reasons for why this form of violence occurs. It relates
more directly to discriminatory ideologies, present in collective movements that are
opposed to social minorities, as is analysed below.
Individuals who express prejudices or are perpetrators of bullying are not fully
developed, in either Kantian or psychoanalytic terms. This weakness may be
associated with what Adorno (2004) calls pseudo-formation, a formation in which
the transmitted content is not introjected and skills are only developed for indi-
vidual survival, disregarding a collective project. Now, formation—as the
Enlightenment could determine—foresaw the need for an individual and a social
consciousness to exist together, which implies that individualism should be as
criticised as collectivism. Moreover, if individualism means the absence of an
individual, then it is this same absence that enables collectivism: a collectivity in
which people blindly associate with one another, considering its particular advan-
tages, rather than the rational perception of the existence of collectivities, without
which the individual could not exist (Horkheimer and Adorno 1973).
As has been developed up to this point, the existing forms of violence, including
bullying and prejudice, are socially determined, and society—through culture—
determines personality structures that are favourable to its development. In this
sense, the violence perpetrated by individuals must be understood in terms of social
and psychological determinations, understanding that the latter are determined by
the former, particularly in a society such as this: a society that leads its members to
constantly compete and that does not encourage the autonomy that would allow
other ways of understanding existing problems, which would prevent irrational
violence as a solution.
The right personality type for expressing a society that is structured in hierar-
chies and contributing to its reproduction is sadomasochist, which combines the
pleasure of superiority—in that it enables the domination of those who are lower in
the hierarchy—and inferiority—due to the pleasure obtained in obeying, which is
possible through identification with the aggressor (see Horkheimer and Adorno
1973). Personality is defined by Adorno et al. (1950) as forces internal to the
individuals that present some stability over time and that tend to determine his or
her actions on different occasions.
As psychoanalysis understands it, sadomasochism is the foundation of the
authoritarian personality studied by Adorno et al. (1950). This type of personality
no longer manifests itself as it did at the end of the nineteenth century: as someone
who acts directly out of passion and with passion. On the contrary, authoritarian
personalities satisfy their destructive impulses using what is permitted by civili-
sation to coolly express and exercise violence. Moreover, this is an important mark
of contemporaneity, according to Horkheimer and Adorno (1985), as it was
Germany—a developed country from a technical and cultural perspective—that
built the gas chamber: a high-tech, aseptic instrument that made it possible to
eliminate multitudes of individuals.
The personality types described as authoritarian by Adorno et al. (1950) move
from the simplest, i.e. ‘surface resentment’, or those who had to express their hatred
of someone who would supposedly be responsible for their failure, to the author-
itarian, who appears to respect authority but actually unconsciously hates it, and,
finally, to the manipulator, those who separate their affections from people and
things, themselves becoming an object and receiving pleasure only from manipu-
lating objects and people to perform their tasks.
In this study, Adorno et al. (1950) examine and confirm the relationship between
personality type—authoritarian or not—and the ideological conceptions of
minorities and political and economic positions. The authoritarian tends to be
prejudiced and conservative in relation to the social structure, whereas the
non-authoritarian tends not to be prejudiced and is inclined to be liberal in terms of
his or her political awareness but liberal in the sense of fighting for a more just
society, although not denying the importance of a social welfare state. Based on
their data, they also concluded that some people can be politically conservative and
non-authoritarian and that others can be authoritarian and defend liberal ideas. In
this case, the ideas would not be defended for their rationality but for being an
expression of some individual desires.
In accordance with what is demonstrated at the beginning of this section, these
authors do not believe that authoritarianism and prejudice are merely individual
variables but that they are also derived from social changes, such as the decline of
middle-class property, the growing difficulty of remaining economically stable,
changes in the family structure and problems associated with the economy
(Horkheimer and Adorno 1973).
Regarding the relationship between authoritarian personality types and forms of
school violence, some of the authoritarian personality types—conventional, tough
guy, manipulator—are more associated with bullying than prejudice because their
aggression does not come from a clearly specified target that is rooted in psychic
needs that they cannot disregard. However, the personality type described as
authoritarian seems to have a well-defined prejudice.
If the authoritarian personality can be associated with the hierarchy and the
pleasure of dominating or submitting, then some of the types associated with
bullying can distinguish the leader from those who practice the intimidation of their
supporters: there are those who satisfy their destructive impulses directly and others
who do it vicariously. In their analysis of fascist rallies, Horkheimer and Adorno
(1985) indicate that the speakers’ imitation of Jews allowed those who attended the
rallies to release a desire repressed by civilisation: that of imitation, even if the
1.4 Prejudice, Bullying and Authoritarian Personality 15
imitation was done by the leader. Imitation would be allowed but only if the people
are being imitated—in this case, Jews—were humiliated, beaten and murdered,
which occurred after these rallies, when those attending it marched to the Jewish
neighbourhoods. In the present day, it can be assumed that supporters of bullying
no longer need to watch an imitation of the target to be destroyed because they take
direct enjoyment from aggression towards the target. As in the distinction between
selective projection and non-selective projection, although imitation still contained
the desire to be what would be destroyed, in bullying, there is only the desire for
destruction, not identification. In this sense, as stated above, bullying satisfies more
primitive psychological needs than the prejudice expressed in anti-Semitism. This
same reasoning can also characterise some of the observers of bullying. Regarding
the victims, they may have been created for peaceful coexistence with others and
thus have difficulty reacting to violence.
In short, with regard to the relationship between personality types and types of
violence, the authoritarian personality, which has sadomasochistic needs at its
foundation, can still identify with those who destroy, i.e. they are more likely to
develop prejudices, which they define by identifying something in the target that
they cannot recognise in themselves. The perpetrators of bullying would be closer
to what is called a narcissistic personality, which is constituted by weak identifi-
cations and an equally weak self: given their suffering and the powerlessness that
they feel when they are attempting to address it, they cannot direct their interest
towards the external world and identify with other people. Before, their suffering
and powerlessness would have been directed towards the destruction of everything
that is not of interest to them and their self-preservation (Lasch 1983).
The foundation of prejudice would be denied identification: being unable to
accept that what is perceived in the other is actually part of the prejudiced indi-
vidual. The foundation of bullying would be difficulty with identification coupled
with the desire to destroy everything. According to Freud (1993), identification is
constituted by affective bonds and is essential to the constitution of the individual
and the pleasure of living. Difficulty with identification would indicate contempt for
life and the satisfaction of destroying every connection. Unlike the association
made by Freud (1986) between the tension generated by the development of
civilisation and the elimination of this tension through destructive impulses, it is the
bully’s precarious or complete lack of identification with this civilisation that would
generate the desire for its destruction; for the narcissist, it would only cause suf-
fering and not the means to overcome it. According to Adorno (2004, 67), the
narcissist maintains his or her self-preservation, even though it is separate from his
or her consciousness and therefore affected by irrational motives. Thus, as stated
above, the more society can dispense with the conscious and rational action of its
members to be able to reproduce itself, the more psychologically regressed these
members will be. As Adorno (2004) argues, if hysteria and obsessive neurosis
belonged to Freud’s times, then narcissism is more fitting to the present day.
It should also be added that Horkheimer and Adorno (1985), in a book published
in 1947, argued that there were no longer any anti-Semites and that the last of them
had existed during the liberal period. At the time that they wrote—and one may
assume that this has not changed—there was a ticket mentality, a way of thinking
using clichés, which did not involve false judgements made by anti-Semites but
only their adherence to a series of characteristics presented in a block in the form of
stereotypes.
1.5 Bullying, Authority and Autonomy
Fante (2005, p. 61) says that specialists consider bullying to be caused by both the
absence of authority, with respect to affect and the limits to be given, and its violent
presence, expressed by physical abuse and aggressive emotional outbursts. Along
these same lines, in the research conducted by the CEATS (2010), some teachers
claim that they were only prepared to address a lack of discipline by using coercion,
whereas families said that the school lacked hierarchy and authority.
For these attributions of causes, we can assume two lines of thinking regarding
family or school educational authority: one advocates for imposing rigid limits
whereas the other neglects the need for authorities to define limits. Paradoxically,
both have similar effects: they do not adequately enable the formation of a moral
consciousness,3 which psychoanalysis calls the superego. Although the first ten-
dency clearly indicates what the authority should instil in children and young
people, it does so grounded in principle and not in its rationality: according to this
line of thinking, people follow moral indicators out of fear rather than conviction.
Thus, this consciousness is weakly formed and becomes ambiguous. In the second
line of thinking, the authority offers no model with which its children can identify,
and therefore, what they are or are not allowed to do is guided externally.
According to Freud (1986), this type of person does not develop the superego,
which was very common at the time he published this text (1929–1930); they feel
no guilt and tend to blame others for the suffering that they experience.
Another possible result of the formation of a moral consciousness is also indi-
cated by Freud (1986): the author argues that indulgent parents may form children
with a rigid consciousness because they do not provide an object in which they can
deposit the hatred caused by repressing their desires. The individual thus turns his
or her aggression towards blaming him/herself. This explanation may be appro-
priate for victims of bullying, who tend to be depressed and have low self-esteem.
A weak formation of the ego ideal is indicated by this author (Freud 1993), as
explained above, as a fundamental element for individuals who act irrationally in
masses and may explain why, more often than not, bullying is practiced in a group
(see CEATS 2010) and why observers can take pleasure from the victims’ expe-
riencing humiliation.
3
For this text, the concepts of moral consciousness, superego and ego ideal are considered similar,
although one cannot be reduced to the other. To avoid making this chapter any longer, we do not
explain the differences between them.
1.5 Bullying, Authority and Autonomy 17
Thus, the moral consciousness, expressed by either its absence or its rigidity,
would be at the foundation of different forms of school violence, such as bullying
and prejudice. Because this discussion concerns formation, it also refers to authority
and its distinction from authoritarianism. According to Adorno (1995a), it is an
enlightened authority that should be replaced by individual consciousness as the
individual becomes autonomous.
Bleichmar (2008) describes two types of authority: one type that attempts to
impose itself externally and another type that is constituted through identifications.
She defends the latter and argues that the bond of trust established with the adult is
what enables the constitution of norms. Both the psychoanalytical side and the
constructivist side differentiate two forms of educational relations, with different
results for autonomy. According to Carvalho (1999), Piaget calls the first form
traditional: it is centred on content and is responsible for the student’s heteronomy.
The active method, centred on the student, would reduce the teacher to an ‘older
friend’ in games and generate autonomy through cooperation among individuals.
However, these lines of thinking—psychoanalysis and constructivism—make
almost no judgements regarding the rationality of norms, which can only be con-
sidered in accordance with the necessities of the time and place, without losing sight
of the whole. The Nazi ideology, for example, has norms, but they can hardly be
considered rational (see Horkheimer and Adorno 1973).
This criticism of the educational authority that generates heteronomy is also
made by Adorno (2004), but as a dialectician, he argues that the decline of authority
did not lead to something better; instead, it weakened both authoritarianism and the
references that authority brings. Moreover, he insists that the contempt for intel-
lectual authority is also a contempt for culture; the more developed culture is, the
more it can differentiate the individuals that are formed through their incorporation.
In a similar sense, Arendt (1978) argues that avoiding adult authority may lead to
conformism or delinquency in children—and often a combination of both—as the
child, allegedly free, falls under the tyranny of the majority formed by other
children.
Authority is important for the formation of the individual because it offers
references, principles and values; it serves as a model that should be incorporated to
later be overcome. If this model does not exist, then there can be no individuality
because the person does not know what he or she wants or desires; if he or she does
not overcome the introjected model, then he or she only rigidly reproduces it (see
Adorno 1995a). In both cases, autonomy is hindered. Autonomy should consist of
the ability to analyse and make decisions about one’s own actions and choices,
based on the appropriate expression of one’s desire and the right conditions for
achieving it, without endangering oneself and others. Only following rules or not
following them indicates heteronomy. As a hypothesis, we can assume that per-
petrators of bullying and those who are prejudiced should be heteronomous: they do
not understand their desires, nor can they find ways to adequately achieve them.
Adorno (1995a) argues that the struggle against the possibility that Auschwitz
will repeat itself is the fundamental principle for all education. According to him,
one important mechanism that must be developed by subjects for this opposition is
autonomy in Kantian terms, defining the possibility of reflection and a

self-determination of non-participation. The fact that Auschwitz had been possible
attested to the failure of education in the constitution of autonomous individuals,
even though that education also contributed to the forces that opposed the horror.
According to the author, not defending this principle could lead to the emergence of
new genocides and the continued persecution of minorities. These acts of violence
have persisted since the victory against German National Socialism to the present
day, and it is the responsibility of education—primarily school education—to
continue defending the development of autonomy.
Barbosa and Wagner (2013) indicate that there are two different ways of
understanding the concept of autonomy with regard to adolescence: one under-
stands it as being opposed to dependence on the parents; the other, as opposed to
heteronomy. In the latter, an affectionate relationship with the parents is important.
According to these researchers, several studies have shown that parental support is
critical for autonomy. Most of the articles they analyse refer to behavioural
autonomy, in terms of decision-making and self-regulation. Another type of
autonomy studied is emotional: differentiating themselves from their parents and
the perception of human fallibility. There are also studies on cognitive autonomy,
which is related to independent thinking. There is a clear relationship between the
three concepts of autonomy presented: all of them refer to the process of individ-
uation, which is the process of differentiating oneself from others, particularly from
educational authorities. The fact that autonomy does not necessarily mean oppo-
sition to adults is in contrast to the notion of individualism: someone who seems to
be able to live without others.
Roth et al. (2010) conduct research with adolescent students and indicate that
when pro-social values are deep and significantly integrated, school violence can be
prevented; in contrast, students who internalise these values superficially or do not
internalise them at all are more prone to violence. These results confirm what was
discussed above. The results of this study also show that the more the student
perceives the teacher’s actions as rational and just and the higher the incentive to
consider and respect others, the more he or she is able to have integrated values and
practice less bullying; the student who acts for external reasons does not perceive
the teacher’s actions as just and rational and tends to practice this form of violence.
Regarding autonomy, an authority who serves as a reference and promotes respect
for others, justice and the reasonableness of actions affects the formation of students
in terms of their autonomy and therefore prevents the practice of bullying. Thus,
autonomy is a better method of preventing this type of violence than external
control, which is necessary, according to these authors, when there is a considerable
amount of violence at a particular school, but insufficient for maintaining behaviour
opposed to bullying.
Thus, regarding formation for autonomy, it is important to reflect on the
rationality of the norms to be incorporated, as argued by Adorno (1995a) and Roth
et al. (2010). It is important because norms—even if they come from tradition or
adaptation—are not necessarily rational and it is thus impossible to forgo that
reflection. One example is fascist states that also have rules; those related to using
force to induce the submission of someone else’s will should not be followed.
According to these authors, it is impossible to accept rules without thinking about
them when considering the autonomy of individuals.
If autonomy from the educational authority is desired by schools, its hypothesis
should be that students with good school performance will be less dependent on the
authority, and vice versa. Integrating educational content and developing the
required skills would allow students to think for themselves, which would be a form
of preventing school bullying, given the consideration and respect for others that
self-reflection brings (Roth et al. 2010).
As noted above, however, according to Adorno (2004), formation has basically
become adaptive and is rarely focused on autonomy, reflection and experience;
even the way of thinking encouraged in school is reducible to technical rules rather
than the contrast between concept and reality, which would define experience.
Thus, the content is not being reflected upon and is quickly being replaced, leaving
no marks on the individual. The concepts learned and skills developed would thus
be external to the individuals and, therefore, disposable. As explained in the study
by Roth et al. (2010), this outcome would be conducive to a lack of autonomy.
In this manner, even good students do not necessarily develop a moral con-
sciousness and one may assume that they would follow rules without reflecting on
them, causing them to earn good grades. However, students who do not have good
academic performance and are undisciplined tend not to follow rules and are not
always punished for it, at least in terms of disruptive behaviour, because poor
grades are the consequences of poor school performance. In other words, even
students with good academic performance could strictly follow the rules without
reflecting on them, and students with poor performance and bad behaviour would
not incorporate them. In this sense, it is also interesting to note that Farisa and
Felmleeb (2014) indicate that the perpetrator of school bullying generally perse-
cutes those who do not follow the rules and/or those who do not represent the
norms: those with delayed physical development or low self-esteem or those who
remain isolated.
Autonomy from the educational authority seems to be related to resistance to
school violence and, therefore, bullying. The more autonomy an individual has, the
more differentiated they will be and the more they can control their own impulses
and desires, and vice versa. This should occur at an early age, as proposed by Voors
(2006), who argues that even children who are very young take responsibility for
their violent behaviour and know that these behaviours are not desirable. On this
subject, as shown above, the study conducted by the CEATS (2010) reports that
family members complain that schools do not have authority or hierarchy; some
teachers, in turn, remark that they are not prepared to address a lack of discipline
and have to use coercion. To examine the effects of coercion on the violent
behaviour of students, Hein et al. (2015) develop a study with adolescent students
and find that their perception of the control exercised by their teachers is associated
with the practice of bullying, i.e. the more they perceive themselves as being
controlled, the greater the anger and the practice of bullying, indicating that
coercion by the authority does not deter this type of violence and also strengthens
heteronomy.
The question of responsibility for one’s own acts, which is defined as autonomy,
cannot ignore the rational judgement of a situation objectively defined by society.
Thus, a legal infraction cannot be reduced to either individual responsibility or what
is objective because both are fundamental; there must be clear consequences for
what occurs with each act. Not everyone acts according to the categorical imper-
ative (Kant 1980) or develops a superego (Freud 1986), and if there are no clear
signs of what is permitted and prohibited and no clear consequences for these acts,
then another obstacle to combating violence emerges: impunity. Bleichmar (2008,
p. 26) argues that impunity is the main problem to be combated in her country—
Argentina—where the despotism characterised and exercised by the military dic-
tatorship led to distrust in the legal system: ‘The problem is seeing how pockets of
impunity are still holding on in a country that has been completely worn down by
the impunity of the powerful over the course of many years. This impunity has
permeated all of society, dictated forms of violence and razed a culture not only of
work but also of ethics’ (our translation).
The author refers to Argentina’s recent history and discusses the need to judge
the crimes that were committed during the military dictatorship. It is interesting to
observe the emphasis that she gives to the impunity that has characterised power
and how it spread to the entire society; it is not only an individual problem.
When the question of impunity for acts contrary to the laws and rules is con-
sidered from an individual perspective, there are two groups of understanding that
exacerbate this question (Adorno 2009) and that are similar to those raised when
discussing whether to use coercion to prevent bullying. On one hand, there are
those who defend the offenders, arguing that they are not fully responsible because
their acts are determined by social and/or psychological factors over which they
have no control. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the offenders
must be fully accountable for their actions and receive the consequences (in general,
punishment) for them so that the offender will not break the law again. The former
fight for adequate life conditions and individual formation so that the crime—
encouraged by the absence of these conditions—can be prevented. The latter, who
are devotees of individual responsibility, regardless of the conditions, believe that
crimes could be avoided based on the individual’s will/choices.
Concerning children and adolescents’ taking responsibility for infractions, the
first group strengthens their arguments, arguing that those who are still being
formed cannot be responsible for their actions; hence, the controversy in different
countries regarding the age of criminal responsibility. Initially, there seem to be two
antagonistic positions. In one, which is ‘almost religious’, everything must be
understood and forgiven: ‘if individuals had other conditions and resources, they
would not commit the crime’. The other, which is legalistic, diminishes the
importance of what may have caused the crime and primarily advocates individual
responsibility for it. Both, however, are idealist, as opposed to materialist, and
certainly do not think about the object through its contradictions.
Epistemologically, idealism can be defined as a way of thinking that emphasises

the primacy of the subject over the object (see Adorno 1995b) and as a set of ideas
that stand between the individual and reality, making it difficult to perceive it
accurately (Adorno 2004). It may be said that the second approach, but not the first,
is idealistic. However, one must consider that defending the subject’s process of
becoming in a non-repressive and just society—which still does not exist—can
make it difficult to think about what it is already possible for a subject to be in this
society, with the actual concrete conditions of existence. The fact that an unjust and
violent society such as this society is not conducive to the emergence of an indi-
vidual who may be fully responsible for his or her actions does not contradict the
fact that this same society also struggles for justice and peace and, therefore,
individuals should strive to maintain and promote what is most rational in this
society. Thus, it is possible to demand rational actions from subjects without
neglecting objective determinations. Progress, according to Adorno (1995b), who
defends it against nihilists, not only is exclusionary but also creates the conditions
for freedom. Justice, freedom and autonomy cannot be thought about in the abstract
but rather according to the history of society; they are mediated by social contra-
dictions. Thus, to consider individual responsibility to be based on materialism is to
affirm and deny it simultaneously: individuals still cannot fully assume their acts,
due to either social or psychological conditions, but this does not mean that they do
not have options for taking responsibility and being held accountable, which
include avoiding crime.
Foucault (1987) demonstrates the moment of moving between understanding a
crime because of circumstantial conditions and understanding it as a result of factors
inherent to the individual, be they psychological and/or educational. Concrete
conditions are no longer responsible for the crime: the individual begins to be
considered responsible for it even before he or she commits it. According to Freud
(1975), a crime alleviates guilt; the intention to commit a crime creates guilt, and
actually committing it alleviates it. This understanding, however, rather than
attributing responsibility to the individual, can be used as a way of understanding
that removes the (conscious) intention and helps mitigate the offense: ‘he didn’t
know what he was doing’.
In turn, legalists advocate for the need to comply with laws without asking
whether individuals have the conditions to follow them. Freud (1986) also makes a
scathing critique of this position, and culture in general, showing that people
become hostile to culture when the sacrifices that are required are not compensated.
In ‘Future of an Illusion’, Freud (1978) argues that if men learned from childhood
to perceive the value that culture has for their life, then they would not attack it. If
this discussion applies when there is little doubt about whether there was a crime,
then it intensifies even more when, as stated above, the actors are children or
adolescents and the offense is considered by some to be something ‘natural’, as a
child’s game, which often occurs with bullying.
Fante (2005) proposes two hypotheses regarding the causes of bullying: family
violence and the student’s insecurity. Regarding the first, it is important to note
Horkheimer and Adorno’s (1973) discussion of the contemporary form of authority,
which—unlike in the past—is no longer primarily based on strength, at least as a

matter of priority. Instead, it is based on subtle or unsubtle threats of abandonment,
which strengthens her second hypothesis: if the threat of being excluded at any time
has increased, then there is growing need to belong and be accepted in the group,
even if acceptance occurs forcibly. This hypothesis does not take away the
importance of being attentive to a family’s physical violence against its children
when attempting to explain the occurrence of bullying, but it strengthens the other
hypothesis.
According to Horkheimer and Adorno (1973), it was not paternal power that
gave a psychic foundation to fascism but rather the decline of authority. The
weakening of authority removed the references that are necessary for individuals to
find their way in life, and those who provide these references take the place of the
father. The weakening of the paternal authority prevents his children from fully
identifying with him; they no longer internalise the norms and principles imposed
by the family that—even though they have repressive characteristics—contribute to
the formation of autonomous people.
If the formation of a moral consciousness is increasingly obstructed, then
autonomy cannot emerge, and therefore, the possibility of acting rationally and
controlling destructive individual actions—present in bullying and discrimination
against students who are considered weak—becomes increasingly difficult.
1.6 Inclusive Education and the Fight Against School

Violence
A contemporary form that indicates a breakthrough in the fight against bullying and
discrimination is inclusive education. Although school violence has been a constant
concern, legislation and statistics show that schools are increasingly focusing on the
inclusion of larger numbers of people, i.e. they have focused on workers, women,
the poor, people with disabilities and, now, the movement for inclusive education or
education for all, which aims to not only provide everyone with access to school but
also allow them to study together. Naturally, there are problems with truancy, grade
repetition and functional illiteracy, but the tendency towards education being
increasingly inclusive in an exclusionary society is considerable. To prove this
point, it is sufficient to note that the number of students with special educational
needs enrolled in regular schools in Brazil in 2003 was 29%; by 2014, it had risen
to 79% (INEP/MEC 2014). Students who attended special institutions or special
classes, or who were not in school at all, are increasingly enrolling in regular
education.
The strengthening of inclusive education began in the 1990s, with milestones
such as the Jomtien conference in 1990 and the Salamanca conference in 1994. At
the latter event, many countries signed a pledge to allow social minorities, who
often vary between countries, to attend regular schools without any type of
1.6 Inclusive Education and the Fight Against School Violence 23
segregation. Brazil was one of these countries, and the data noted above show that it
has successfully implemented this proposal. Naturally, there are obstacles. One
concerns the fact that inclusive education has primarily focused on students with
disabilities when it should be aimed at all minorities who, for different reasons, are
unable to attend school or have difficulties remaining in school. Another is that
schools have not been modified to include all of the minorities who should be
involved in them; students in an inclusive situation are generally integrated but not
included. The distinction between integrated and inclusive education, according to
Ainscow (1997) and Vivarta (2003), is that the former adapts the curriculum,
teaching methods and evaluation for students in an inclusive situation whereas the
latter alters the school’s structure and operations, considering a pedagogical policy
that includes everyone. In this sense, this type of school organisation is not focused
only on minorities but involves modifying the school for everyone.
In addition to these obstacles, the scientific literature has shown that although
there is acceptance of students in an inclusive situation—basically, students with
disabilities—it is difficult for their classmates to accept them into their groups. The
review study developed by Vieira and Denari (2007) indicates that students with
disabilities are not valued by their classmates. According to these authors, this
devaluing may be due to current social conceptions, such as a prejudice that
reproduces itself. In the study by Batista and Enumo (2004), sociometric tests are
applied to three classes at municipal schools in which each contains one student
who is considered to have intellectual disabilities; the three students are filmed
during recess to observe their interactions with others. The sociometric tests show
three different results: one student is not chosen by any of his classmates and is
rejected by two of them; another is regarded as popular for being chosen by several
of his classmates for schoolwork (six classmates) and playing (seven classmates);
and the third has nine rejections that are justified by his inadequate motor beha-
viour, social inadequacy and poor academic performance. Regarding the footage,
they observe that despite the differences among the three students, they are alone
most of the time; when they interact, they generally do so with only one person for
a short amount of time.
In addition to the distinction between integrated education and inclusive edu-
cation indicated above, there are different models of inclusive education. One of
them has been developed at the Escola da Ponte in Portugal (see Pacheco et al.
2007), which focuses on individual curricula and group work. Another has been
developed in Spain, through proposals by Melero (2006), who argues that there
should be a mediator between the family and the school for students with intel-
lectual disabilities, primarily people with Down syndrome. A third, mainly devel-
oped in England but also proposed and disseminated by UNESCO, works on the
school community: it still considers individual differences but also includes the
community (Ainscow 1997). Because the object of this chapter is school violence, it
is important to emphasise that by fighting against the prejudice and discrimination
present in segregation and marginalisation and by insisting on both individual
learning and group relationships, the changes proposed in these different models are
antidotes to it. Nevertheless, as noted, there are still problems with implementing
this type of education.
Based on the literature in this area, Antunes and Zuin (2008) indicate that
victims of bullying are people with specific physical, socio-economic, ethnic and
sexual preference characteristics, including Romani, circus performers, foreigners,
obese students, those with a low stature and homosexuals. Although students with
physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities are noticeably different from other
people, whether these differences are the result of nature or accidents, other targets
may exhibit characteristics of weakness that are culturally devalued.
One may expect that the new students—particularly those with disabilities—
would be the preferred victims of bullying, and this expectation is confirmed by
Freire et al. (2006) and Fante (2005). According to Fante (2005, p. 64): ‘Children
with disabilities and special educational needs are at greater risk of becoming
victims of bullying, and these risks are two to three times greater than with children
considered normal’.
A study conducted in São Paulo (Crochick 2004) that compares prejudice
against individuals with physical disabilities with prejudice against individuals with
intellectual disabilities shows that students with physical disabilities are more
discriminated against than those with intellectual disabilities: someone who is
closer to ‘normality’ seems to attract more anger from those who are ‘normal’ than
someone who is considered/perceived as being farther away from it. This is the
phenomenon described by Freud (1986), and stated above, as the ‘narcissism of
small differences’: someone who is closer to ‘normal’ but has some type of dif-
ference must have this difference amplified so that those who are more ‘similar’ are
possible targets of identification. Thus, unlike Fante’s (2005) consideration above,
students who are not in an inclusive situation but have characteristics that are
devalued, such as wearing glasses or being very thin, fat, tall or short, may be more
likely to be targets of bullying than those in an inclusive situation. Different types of
bullying may be aimed at these two groups, which can be illustrated by the results
presented in the study by Crochick et al. (2013), who indicate that students in an
inclusive situation tend to be protected; if they experience discriminatory actions
against them, such as marginalisation and segregation, then they seem to be victims
of prejudice rather than bullying.
In the same direction, Monteiro and Castro (1997) show that students with
disabilities have been well received by their classmates who learn with them.
Nevertheless, one may wonder whether other forms of violence may develop
against students in an inclusive situation. The study by Crochick et al. (2013) cited
above provides data from four schools in São Paulo—two public and two private—
with eight fifth-grade students in an inclusive situation. Through interviews with
coordinators and teachers, classroom observations and different sociograms, they
find that only one of these students is constantly taunted by his classmates: one who
looks no different from the others and has a little-known and established syndrome
that hinders short-term memory and thus impedes different types of learning. The
others are ignored by their classmates or protected. The fact that they generally do
not experience bullying does not imply that they are not targets of other forms of
1.6 Inclusive Education and the Fight Against School Violence 25
violence derived from prejudice: marginalisation and segregation. In the former, the
student is considered part of the class group but is little valued; in the latter, they are
not even considered part of the group. There are more opportunities for these
students’ inclusion than for their discrimination, expressed by marginalisation and
segregation, which indicates that inclusive education can at least partially fulfil its
objectives and should thus be defended and developed.
As is developed over the course of this chapter, bullying and prejudice—forms
of school violence that must be viewed as distinct, despite the common charac-
teristics between them—require an understanding of sociocultural and psycholog-
ical factors to fight them, which indicates that only studying individual and family
factors, as important as they are, does not consider other important dimensions,
such as the existence of school hierarchies, the presence or absence of authority and
the possibility of developing autonomy. School education has been modified not
only to meet the objective of transmitting knowledge but also to combat violence
through the formation of autonomous and critical individuals. Although inclusive
education has been proposed for the inclusion and non-discrimination of minorities,
it also gives visibility to the existence of different forms of discrimination, such as
segregation and marginalisation (Crochick et al. 2013), which need to be overcome.
Ultimately, these forms of violence are not immediately created by school educa-
tion because schools reflect the society that establishes them. However, if schools
have a relative autonomy, then they can criticise this society to prevent or at least
mitigate this violence. In this sense, advocates of inclusive education, which is
already a social advance in this fight, must be aware of the existing social con-
tradictions so that this form of education does not become stuck in the same
violence that it is fighting against and can thus more appropriately fight the bullying
and prejudice that are directed not only at students in an inclusive situation but also
at all those who evoke the desire for domination and destruction because they
appear weak.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1992) Minima Moralia: reflexões a partir da vida danificada [Minima moralia:
Reflections from damaged life]. São Paulo: Editora Ática. (Original work published in 1951).
Adorno, T. W. (1995a). Educação e Emancipação [Education and Emancipation] (W. L. Maar,
Trans.) Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. (Original work published in 1967).
Adorno, T. W. (1995b). Palavras e Sinais: modelos críticos 2 [Critical models: Interventions and
catchwords] (M. H. Ruschel, Trans.). Petrópolis: Vozes.
Adorno, T. W. (2004). Teoría de la pseudocultura [Theory of pseudo-culture]. In: T. W. Adorno
(Ed.), Adorno Escritos Sociológicos I, obra completa [Adorno’s Sociological Writings I, the
complete works]. 8 (A. G. Ruiz, Trans.) (pp. 39–78). Madri: Edicciones Akal, S.A.
Adorno, T. W. (2009). Dialética Negativa [Negative dialectics]. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Ahn, H.-J., Garandeau, C. F., & Rodkin, P. C. (2010). Effects of classroom embeddedness and
density on the social status of aggressive and victimized children. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 30, 76–101. doi:10.1177/0272431609350922
Ainscow, M. (1997). Educação para todos: torná-la uma realidade [Education for all: Making it a
reality]. In: M. Ainscow, G. Porter, & M. Wang (Eds.), Caminhos para as escolas inclusivas
[Paths towards inclusive schools]. Lisboa: Instituto de Inovação Educacional.
Albuquerque, P. P., Williams, L. C. A., & D’Affonseca, S. M. (2013). Efeitos tardios do bullying e
transtorno de estresse pós-traumático: Uma revisão crítica [Long-term effects of bullying and
posttraumatic stress disorder: A critical review]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 29(1), 91–98.
doi:10.1590/S0102-37722013000100011
Antunes, D. C., & Zuin, A. A. S. (2008). Do bullying ao preconceito: Os desafios da barbárie à
educação [From bullying to prejudice: The challenges from barbarism to education].
Psicologia & Sociedade, 20(1), 33–41. doi:10.1590/S0102-71822008000100004
Arendt, H. (1978). Entre o passado e o futuro [Between past and future]. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Barbosa, P. V., & Wagner, A. (2013). A autonomia na adolescência: revisando conceitos, modelos
e variáveis [Autonomy in adolescence: Reviewing concepts, models and variables]. Estudos de
Psicologia (Natal), 18(4), 649–658.
Batista, M. W., Enumo, S. R. F. (2004). Inclusão Escolar e deficiência mental: análise da interação
social entre companheiros [School inclusion and mental disabilities: An analysis of social
interaction among classmates]. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 9(1), Jan/Fev.
Berdondini, L., & Smith, P. K. (1996). Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in
bully/victim problems at school: An Italian replication. Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 99–102.
Bleichmar, S. (2008). Violencia Social – violencia escolar: de la puesta de limites a la
construcción de legalidades. Buenos Aires: Centro de Publicaciones educativas y material
didáctico.
Caravita, S. C. S., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between
interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social
Development, 21(2), 376–395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x
Carvalho, J. S. F. (1999). Autonomia e autoridade no construtivismo: uma crítica às concepções de
Piaget [Autonomy and authority in constructivism: A critique of Piaget’s conceptions]. In:
Aquino, J. G. (org.), Autoridade e Autonomia [Authority and Autonomy] (pp. 49–70). São
Paulo: Summus.
CEATS. Centro de Empreendedorismo Social e Administração em Terceiro Setor. Fundação
Instituto de Administração - FIA [Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Management in the
Third Sector. Management Institute Foundation]. (2010). Bullying escolar no Brasil -
Relatório Final [School bullying in Brazil—Final Report]. São Paulo: CEATS/FIA.
Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/edudeoliv/pesquisa-bullying-escolarnobrasil.
Accessed on August 15, 2013.
Crochick, J. L. (2004). Manifestações de Preconceito em relação às etnias e aos deficientes
[Expressions of prejudice towards ethnic groups and the disabled]. Boletim de Psicologia, São
Paulo, LIII(118), 89–108.
Crochick, J. L. (2012). Fatores psicológicos e sociais associados ao bullying [Psychological and
social factors associated with bullying]. Revista Psicologia política, 12(24), 211–229 (online).
Crochick, J. L. (2014). Prejudice, violence, and school performance. In T. Draper (Ed.),
Psychology of prejudice: New research (pp. 167–190). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Crochik, J. L. (2015). Formas de violência escolar: preconceito e bullying [Forms of school
violence: Prejudice and bullying]. Movimento - Revista de Educação, 3, 29–56.
Crochick, J. L., Kohatsu, L. N., Dias, M. A., Freller, C. C., & Casco, R. (2013). Inclusão e
discriminação na educação escolar [Inclusion and discrimination in school education].
Campinas: Alínea Editora.
de Bruyn, E. H., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Wissink, I. B. (2010). Associations of peer acceptance and
perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 30(4), 543–566. doi:10.1177/0272431609340517
References 27
Fante, C. (2005). Fenômeno bullying: Como prevenir a violência nas escolas e educar para a paz
[The bullying phenomenon: How to prevent violence in schools and educate for peace].
Campinas, SP: Verus.
Farisa, R., & Felmleeb, D. (2014). Casualties of social combat: School networks of peer
victimization and their consequences. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 228–257.
Foucault, M. (1987) Vigiar e Punir [Discipline and punish]. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Freire, I. P., Veiga Simão, A., & Ferreira, A. S. (2006). O estudo da violência entre pares no 3º
ciclo do ensino básico—um questionário aferido para a população escolar portuguesa
[Studying peer violence in the 3rd cycle of basic education—A questionnaire for the
Portuguese school population]. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 19(2), 157–183.
Freud, S. (1943). La Moral Sexual “Cultural” y La Nerviosidad Moderna (pp. 31–55). Buenos
Aires: Editorial Americana.
Freud, S. (1975). O Ego e O ID [The ego and the id]. Pequena Coleção das Obras de Freud [Small
Collection of Freud’s works]. Rio de Janeiro: Imago.
Freud, S. (1978) O Futuro de uma Ilusão [The future of an illusion]. In S. Freud (Ed.), Textos
Escolhidos [Selected texts]. São Paulo: Abril Cultural.
Freud, S. (1986). El malestar en la cultura. In N. A. Braustein (org.), A medio siglo de El malestar
en la cultura de Sigmund Freud (pp. 22–116) (J. L. Etcheverry, Trans.). México: Siglo
Veintiuno.
Freud, S. (1993). Psicologia de las masas y análisis del yo. In S. Freud (Ed.), Obras completas
(Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 63–136). reimpressão. (J. L. Etcheverry, Trans.). Argentina: Amorrortu ed.
Galvão, A., Gomes, C. A., Capanema, C., Caliman, G., & Câmara, J. (2010). Violências escolares:
Implicações para a gestão e o currículo [School violence: Implications for administration and
curriculum]. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas Públicas em Educação [Essay: Evaluation and
Public Policies on Education], 18(68), 425–442. doi:10.1590/S0104-40362010000300002
Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Inequality matters: Classroom status
hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4
hierarchy and adolescents’ bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(7), 1123–1133.
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0040-4
Grossi, P. K., & Santos, A. M. (2009). Desvendando o fenômeno bullying nas escolas públicas de
Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil [Unravelling the bullying phenomenon in the public schools of Porto
Alegre, RS, Brazil]. Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 22(2).
Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Relationships between perceived teachers’
controlling behaviour, psychological need thwarting, anger and bullying behaviour in
high-school students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 103–114.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1973). Temas básicos de sociologia [Basic topics in
sociology]. São Paulo: Editora Cultrix.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1985). Dialética do Esclarecimento [Dialectic of
Enlightenment] (G. A. de Almeida, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.
INEP/MEC. (2014). Censo Educacional [Educational Census]. http://www.inep.gov.br/imprensa/
noticias/censo/escolar/arquivo10.htm; 26/04/2016.
Jahoda, M., & Ackerman, N. W. (1969). Distúrbios emocionais e anti-semitismo [Emotional
disturbances and anti-Semitism]. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic
performance across middle school grades. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152–173.
doi:10.1177/0272431610379415
Kant, I. (1980). Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes [Groundwork for the Metaphysics of
Morals]. In Textos Selecionados/Kant [Selected texts/Kant] (pp. 101–163). São Paulo: Abril
Cultural. (Os Pensadores).
Kant, I. (1992). A Paz Perpétua e Outros Opúsculos [Perpetual peace and other essays]. Lisboa:
edições 70.
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 513–520.
Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. (1975). O Indivíduo na Sociedade - Um manual
de Psicologia Social, 3ª ed. [The Individual in Society—A Handbook of Social Psychology]
(3rd ed.). São Paulo: Pioneira.
Lasch, C. (1983). A Cultura do narcisismo [The Culture of Narcissism]. Rio de Janeiro: Imago.
Levandoski, G., & Cardoso, F. L. (2013). Imagem corporal e status social de estudantes brasileiros
envolvidos em bullying [Body image and social status of Brazilian students involved in
bullying.]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 45(1), 135–145.
Li, Y., & Wright, M. F. (2014). Adolescents’ social status goals: Relationships to social status
insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43(1), 146–160.
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9939-z
Lopes Neto, A. (2005). Bullying: comportamento agressivo entre estudantes [Bullying: Aggressive
behaviour among students]. Jornal de Pediatria (Rio J), 81(5, suppl.), 164–172 (online).
Marcuse, H. (1981). Eros e Civilização [Eros and Civilisation] (A. Cabral, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro:
Zahar.
Marcuse, H. (1982). A ideologia da sociedade industrial [One-dimensional man: Studies in the
ideology of advanced industrial society]. (A. Cabral, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Marx, K. (1984). O capital: crítica da economia política [Capital: Critique of political economy]
(Vol. 1). São Paulo: Difel, Livro I.
Meertens, R. W., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1999). Será o racismo subtil mesmo racismo? [Is subtle
racism still racism?]. In: J. Vala (org.), Novos Racismos: Perspectivas Comparativas [New
racisms: Comparative perspectives] (pp. 11–29). Oeiras: Celta editora.
Mehta, S. B., Cornell, D., Fan, X., & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying climate and school engagement
in ninth-grade students. Journal of School Health, 83(1), 45–52. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.
2012.00746.x
Melero, M. L. (2006). Escolas inclusivas: o projeto Roma [Inclusive schools: The Roma project]
(Vol. 8). Ponto de Vista: Revista de Educação e Processos Inclusivos.
Monteiro, M. B., & Castro, P. (1997). Cada cabeça sua sentença [Everyone has their own
opinion]. Celta Editora: Oeira.
Pacheco, J., Eggertsdóttir, R., & Marinósson, G. L. (2007). Caminhos para a inclusão [Paths
towards inclusion]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Paula, F. V., D’Aura-Tardeli, D. (Org.). (2009). Violência na escola e da escola: desafios
contemporâneos à psicologia da educação [Violence at school and school violence:
Contemporary challenges to educational psychology] (1st ed.). São Bernardo do Campo:
Universidade Metodista de São Paulo.
Pinheiro, F. M. F., & Williams, L. C. A. (2009). Violência intrafamiliar e intimidação entre colegas
no ensino fundamental [Family violence and bullying among peers in primary school].
Cadernos de Pesquisa, 39(138), 995–1018. doi:10.1590/S0100-15742009000300015
Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bibi, U. (2010). Prevention of school bullying: The important
role of autonomy-supportive teaching and internalization of pro-social values. British Journal
of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1348/2044-8279.002003
Strøm, I. F., Thoresen, S., Wentzel-Larsen, T.; & Dyb, G. (2013). Violence, bullying and academic
achievement: A study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school environment. Child Abuse &
Neglect.
Veiga Simão, A. M, Freire, I., & Ferreira, A. (2004). Maus-tratos entre pares na escola—um
estudo contextualizado [Mistreatment among peers at school—A contextualised study]. In
Actas do Congresso Ibero-Americano sobre Violências nas Escolas, realizado em Brasília,
Brasil em 28 e 29 de Abril de 2004, patrocinado pela UNESCO, pelo Observatório de
Violências nas Escolas e pela Universidade Católica de Brasília [Proceedings of the
Ibero-American Congress on Violence in Schools, held in Brasilia, Brazil on April 28 and 29,
2004, sponsored by UNESCO, the Observatory of Violence in Schools and the Catholic
University of Brasilia] (published on CD-ROM: 18076165 ISSN).
References 29
Vieira, C. M., & Denari, F. E. (2007). O que pensam e sentem crianças não-deficientes em relação
às deficiências e à inclusão: revisão bibliográfica [What non-disabled children think and feel
about disabilities and inclusion: A literature review]. Educação e Contemporaneidade, 16(27),
31–40 (January/June).
Vivarta, V. (2003). Mídia e diversidade [Media and Diversity]. Brasília: ANDI, Fundação Banco
do Brasil.
Voors, W. (2006). Bullying, El acoso escolar. Buenos Aires: Oniro.
Zwaan, M., Dijkstra, J. K., & Veenstra, R. (2013). Status hierarchy, attractiveness hierarchy, and
sex ratio: Three contextual factors explaining the status-aggression link among adolescents.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(3), 211–221. doi:10.1177/
0165025412471018
Chapter 2
Objectives and Research Method
2.1 Objectives
The objectives of this research are as follows:

(a) To examine the relationships among perceived school performance, bullying
and prejudice;
(b) To examine the relationships between the two forms of violence studied—
bullying and prejudice—and adherence to the ideology of authoritarianism and
autonomy from the school authority;
(c) To describe the characteristics of the perpetrators and victims of school vio-
lence, the individual reasons for aggression and the feelings caused in the
victims; and
(d) To examine the relationships between, on one hand, prejudice against students
in an inclusive situation and, on the other hand, school violence and positions in
school hierarchies.
2.2 Method
2.2.1 Participants
The study involves the participation of 274 ninth-grade students attending four public
schools in the municipality of São Paulo. A total of 122 of these students are female
(44.5%), their average age is 14.1 years old (SD = 0.8), and they had attended their
school for an average of 5.4 years (SD = 2.7 years). Their average socio-economic
status, evaluated by the Brazil Economic Classification Criteria, which were devel-
oped by the Brazilian Advertisers’ Association/Brazilian Association of Market
Research Firms (Associação Brasileira de Anunciantes/Associação Brasileira dos

32 2 Objectives and Research Method
Institutos de Mercado—ABA-ABIPEME), is 22.6 points (SD = 5.8 points), placing

them among classes C1 and B2. In terms of their religion, 27.4% are Catholic, 15.7%
are Evangelical, 45.6% said that they have no religion, and the rest follow other
religions.
2.2.2 Instruments
To test the instruments, they were applied three times to samples with character-
istics similar to those of the experimental sample. Based on these applications, the
instruments were modified; their structure and content are presented in the
Appendix and described below:
Personal Data Questionnaire We used this instrument to collect the students’
personal data, such as gender, age, religion and length of time attending their
current school. Based on the educational level of the person considered to be the
student’s head of household and the goods that they had at home, we evaluated their
socio-economic status in accordance with the Brazil Economic Classification
Criteria instrument, developed by the ABA-ABIPEME.
Fascism Scale (F-scale) This instrument was used in this study to determine the
students’ degree of authoritarianism to relate it to the other variables. Developed by
Adorno et al. (1950), this scale was created for their study on the authoritarian
personality, which was conducted in the United States in the 1940s. It was trans-
lated by Crochík (2000) and has been used in other studies (Crochík 2005; Crochík
et al. 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients obtained in these studies are 0.77
and 0.84, respectively. For this study, it consisted of 27 Likert-type items with six
response options for each item but scores ranging from one to seven points;
responses 4, 5 and 6 were scored as 5, 6 and 7, respectively, to give higher scores to
the transition between the statements of disagreement (1, 2 and 3) and those of
agreement (4, 5 and 6). Some items were removed because they were very specific
to the time and place in which it was created, resulting in 27 Likert-type items for
this study. The higher the score was, the greater the degree of adherence to fascism,
which also indicates sadomasochistic personality characteristics (Rouanet 1983).
For the sample tested, the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.72.
Regarding the scores obtained on the F-scale, no significant differences between
male and female participants or between those who were or were not religious were
found. There was also no significant correlation between the subjects’ age and
socio-economic status and the scores on this scale.1
1
We only indicate the statistical results obtained in parentheses when comparisons and correlations
have a significance level of p < 0.05.
2.2 Method 33
Autonomy from Authority

The Autonomy from School Authority Scale (A-scale) was constructed based on
the texts of Adorno (1995a, b, 2004), Lasch (1983) and Adorno et al. (1950). It
contains 10 Likert-type items with the same range as the F-scale: it ranges from one
point (complete disagreement) to seven points (complete agreement). The higher
the score is, the lower the autonomy from the school authority. Through factor
analysis, using the principal component method (KMO = 0.585; ƛ2(45) = 337.486,
p < 0.00) and Varimax rotation, three factors that explain 51.337% of the total
variance are found. The data for this factor analysis are shown in Table 2.1.
As shown by the data in Table 2.1, three factors were extracted from the A-scale.
The first was designated ‘punishment and obedience’, and it had a satisfactory
accuracy, as evaluated by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (a = 0.65). Agreement
with its items indicates a tendency towards needing to punish those who break the
rules as well as a ‘blind’ obedience to the rules established and represented by the
school authority even if they are irrational. Agreement with the items in the second
factor, designated ‘rejection of authority’ (a = 0.53), indicates that the respondent
does not perceive the school authority as being necessary for either individual
guidance or for resolving any problems that arise among students. Finally, agree-
ment with the items in the third factor, designated ‘rejection of punishment’
(a = 0.46), indicates resistance to punishment, which, as discussed in the previous
chapter, is sometimes necessary. Although the A-scale does not have a high internal
consistency (a = 0.57), its factors have construct validity, i.e. a good relationship
with the theoretical references that were used to construct it. Moreover, significant
correlations2 between the A-scale and each of its factors and the F-scale, described
above, were obtained, with p < 0.000. The following values were obtained: Factor
1—r(272) = 0.47; Factor 2—r(272) = 0.23; Factor 3—r(272) = 0.24 and the
A-scale—r(272) = 0.50. Thus, the more authoritarian the individual is, the lower
his or her autonomy from the school authority.
A lack of autonomy from the school authority, as discussed in the previous
chapter, can refer to blind adherence to values and principles—in short, the
authority—which was evaluated by Factor 1, or its rejection, as inferred by the
other two factors, although in different ways.
When this study’s control variables—gender, religion, age and socio-economic
status—were compared or correlated with the A-scale and its factors, the following
results were obtained:
– There was no significant difference between the genders in relation to the factors
and the overall score;
– The participants who stated that they had no religion had significantly lower
scores for the factor referring to punishment and obedience than the other
2
These correlations were obtained using the Pearson correlation coefficient, with 272 degrees of
freedom.
Table 2.1 Factors, items and factor loadings of the autonomy from school authority scale
Factor Item Factor
loading
Punishment and Disobeying the teacher should be punished 0.73
obedience The teacher should always be obeyed 0.70
Any infraction of the rules should be punished 0.68
Teachers should always be respected 0.66
Rejection of I do not need them to tell me what to do 0.83
authority Everyone is equal, and it is not necessary to have authority 0.65
Teachers should let students solve their disagreements on 0.62
their own
Rejection of If the students do not know they did something wrong, then 0.72
punishment they should not be punished
The teacher should not punish an undisciplined student 0.65
Receiving a good evaluation from the teacher is more 0.64
important than learning
students [t(272) = 2.303; p < 0.05); religious followers thus tended to agree
more with the need for obedience and punishment for those who break the rules;
– There was only a significant correlation between age and Factor 2—‘rejection
of authority’; the higher the age, the greater the score is in this factor
[r(272) = 0.146; p < 0.05), i.e. the more they believed that the authority does
not need to mediate conflicts among students; and
– Socio-economic status did not correlate significantly with any of these factors.
Identification of School Hierarchies (H-scale)
The construction of this scale followed the procedure adopted by Ahn et al. (2010),
Li and Wright (2014), de Bruyn et al. (2010) and Caravita and Cillessen (2012) for
measuring perceived popularity among peers.
This scale’s objective is to rank students according to their performance in the
two school hierarchies: the hierarchy comprising academic performance and the
hierarchy formed by performance in physical education and perceived popularity.
The participants had to complete two tables. In one of them, they had to indicate up
to three students in their class who they consider to be: 1—the best in academic
subjects; 2—the best in physical education and 3—the most popular. In the other
table, they had to indicate up to three students who they believe to be: 1—the worst
in academic subjects; 2—the worst in physical education and 3—the least popular.
Performance in physical education was used as an indication of position in the
unofficial hierarchy, considering the study by Levandoski and Cardoso (2013), who
emphasise the relationship between physical abilities—part of this subject—pop-
ularity and the perpetration of aggression against classmates.
The participants could indicate the same classmate more than once, and they
could also mark down their own name. It is possible to establish two rankings in
each hierarchy: those nominated as the best and those considered the worst.
2.2 Method 35
Six scores were calculated for each participant: the best and the worst in aca-
demic subjects; the best and the worst in physical education; and the most popular
and the most unpopular. One may think that only the best performance and pop-
ularity scores would be necessary, but we believe that the subjects’ nominations of
the best students in each hierarchy do not imply that those who were not chosen are
at the bottom; hence, the importance of also identifying the worst performers and
those who are unpopular. The scores were calculated according to Formula 2(1):
I = (n/N) * 100, where
I is the performance indicator;
n is the number of times the student was nominated; and
N is the number of students in the classroom.
This indicator ranges from zero—no nominations—to 100 points—everyone
nominated them. To validate this instrument, its scores were correlated with the
year-end evaluations conducted by the teachers in academic subjects and physical
education. The following results were obtained:
– The better the teacher evaluated a given student in academic subjects (a mean
was calculated for each student), the more he or she was nominated by their
classmates as being the best in academic subjects [r(272) = 0.55; p < 0.01], and
vice versa; and the less he or she was nominated by their classmates as being the
worst in these subjects [r(272) = −0.47; p < 0.01], and vice versa; and
– The better the teacher evaluated a given student in physical education, the more
he or she was nominated by their classmates as being the best in this subject [r
(272) = 0.37; p < 0.01], and vice versa; and the less he or she was nominated by
their classmates as being the worst in this subject [r(272) = −0.25; p < 0.01],
and vice versa.
Thus, there was a significant relationship between the classmates’ nominations
regarding school performance in academic subjects and physical education and the
teachers’ evaluation, which suggests the validity of the classmates’ evaluations,
even though the correlations do not have a high magnitude. In this study, the
decision was made to consider the classmates’ perceptions of the best and the worst
performing students, rather than grades or teacher nominations, because a student
who is considered good, participates and demonstrates knowledge in the classroom
does not necessarily have good grades. Something similar can be said of perfor-
mance in physical education. Furthermore, because we are addressing organisation
among peers in these hierarchies, it seemed more appropriate for the students
themselves to say who they believed had better or worse performance.
Factor analysis using the principal component method for the six indicators
showed that there was sufficient variation to extract factors [KMO = 0.567; Bartlett
(ƛ2(15) = 329.34; p = 0.00]. The factors obtained and their respective factor
loadings are shown in Table 2.2.
According to Table 2.2, there are three factors underlying the evaluations of
school hierarchies: the first two refer to the unofficial hierarchy, and the last refers to
Table 2.2 Factors, items and factor loadings of the identification of school hierarchies scale
Factor Item Factor Loading
Top of the unofficial hierarchy (a = 0.736) Best in physical education 0.821
Most popular 0.884
Bottom of the unofficial hierarchy (a = 0.692) Worst in physical education 0.859
Most unpopular 0.795
Official hierarchy (a = 0.460) Best in academic subjects 0.831
Worst in academic subjects −0.780
the official hierarchy. In this last factor, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was low.
For this reason, the decision was made to consider its items separately for the
remaining calculations, each expressing an official hierarchy: the best and the worst
students in academic subjects.
The indicators of Factor 1 and Factor 2 could constitute two new scores,
obtained by the respective means: the Indicator of the Top of the Unofficial
Hierarchy (TUH), constituted by the scores obtained in the nomination of the best
in physical education and the most popular, and the Indicator of the Bottom of the
Unofficial Hierarchy, obtained by the calculated scores of the worst in physical
education and those nominated most often as being unpopular. Thus, the two school
hierarchies described by Adorno (1995a) are decomposed, and four scores are
calculated for each student, allowing a more detailed analysis of this variable’s
relationship with the others.
Other results that give validity to this scale are the significant correlations
obtained among these indicators, which are presented in Table 2.3.
As shown in Table 2.3, the following data contribute to confirming the existence
of the hierarchies:
– The more the student was nominated as being the best in academic subjects, the
less he or she was nominated as having the worst performance in these subjects,
and vice versa;
– The more the student was nominated as being the best in academic subjects, the
more he or she was also nominated as being at the TUH, and vice versa;
– The more the student was nominated as being the worst in academic subjects,
the more he or she was nominated as being at the TUH; and
– The more the student was nominated as being at the TUH, the less he or she was
nominated as being at the bottom of the unofficial hierarchy, and vice versa.
Because the correlations were either not significant or had low magnitudes, it is
possible to infer the existence of four hierarchies: the official hierarchy of the best
students, the official hierarchy of the worst students, the hierarchy of the best
students in the unofficial hierarchy and the hierarchy of the worst students in the
unofficial hierarchy. The school hierarchies described by Adorno (1995a) can thus
be subdivided and express different factors.
2.2 Method 37
Table 2.3 Pearson correlation coefficients among the indicators of the identification of school
hierarchies scale
Worst in academic Top of the unofficial Bottom of the
subjects hierarchy unofficial hierarchy
Best in academic −0.308** −0.021 0.151*
subjects
Worst in academic 0.155* 0.073
subjects
Top of the unofficial −0.382**
hierarchy
*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
With regard to this study’s control variables, we obtained the following results:
– Female students were considered to have significantly better performance than
male students in academic subjects [(t(272) = 3.450; p = 0.001];
– Male students were perceived to have better performance in physical education
[(t(272) = 5.040; p = 0.000] and worse performance in academic subjects [(t
(272) = 7.436; p = 0.000];
– There were no significant differences between the genders in terms of popularity
and unpopularity or for those nominated as being the worst in physical
education;
– The subjects did not significantly differ with respect to these variables in terms
of whether they followed a religion;
– The higher the participant’s age, the more he or she was nominated as being
popular [r(272) = 0.186; p = 0.002] and as being the worst in academic subjects
[r(272) = 0.158; p = 0.009]; and
– The higher the participant’s socio-economic status, the more he or she was
considered to be popular [r(272) = 0.173; p = 0.004] and the less he or she was
nominated as being unpopular [r(272) = −0.132; p = 0.029].
Bullying Self-identification Scale (B-scale)
The verification scale for bullying (B-scale) was constructed to obtain data on
bullying self-reports, similar to how Roth et al. (2010), Salmivalli et al. (2011) and
Hein et al. (2015) proceeded to determine whether their study participants were
perpetrators and/or victims of bullying. The participants had to respond to two
tables that contain different types of aggression against classmates: name calling,
threatening to hit, hitting, spreading rumours, excluding/rejecting, giving offensive
nicknames, ruining things or clothing, taking things or money without permission
and caressing without permission.
One of these tables was related to aggressions committed against classmates and
the other to possible aggressions experienced. They included four response options
for indicating the frequency with which the aggression was committed and/or
experienced during the quarter when the data were collected, with the following
respective scores: did not practice or experience any type of violence—zero points;
one to two times during the quarter—one point; one to three times per month—two
points; one to four times per week—three points; and every day—four points. Two
scores were calculated for these tables: one score referred to self-reports as a
perpetrator of aggression and the other score to self-reports as a target of
aggression.
The results for the control variables were the following:
– Male students self-reported being aggressors more often than female students [t
(272) = 4.280; p = 0.000], but there were no differences between the genders in
terms of self-reports as a victim;
– The participants who follow and do not follow a religion did not differ from
each other in terms of self-reports as aggressors or victims; and
– There were no significant relationships between self-reports as an aggressor or
victim and the participants’ age and socio-economic status.
After each of the two sets of questions, it was asked whether 1—the acts of
aggression were practiced/experienced in a group or by someone stronger and 2—
they always referred to the same target. When the answer to both questions was yes,
the participant was considered a perpetrator and/or victim of bullying, remembering
that this form of violence is described by repeated action against the same target by
someone with more power, as defined in the introduction to this work (Fante 2005;
Lopes Neto 2005). Using these categories, it was possible to classify each student’s
involvement in bullying as follows: ‘no participation’, ‘victim’, ‘victim and per-
petrator’ and ‘perpetrator’.
There was no significant relationship between the participants’ type of
involvement in bullying and their gender or whether they followed a religion. There
was also no significant difference between the types of involvement in terms of age
and socio-economic status.
Bullying Classmate Nomination Scale (BNS-Scale)
To characterise the students who practice and/or experience bullying, each partic-
ipant was asked to nominate four classmates who most often practice the aggres-
sions listed in the tables of B-scale and the four classmates who most experience
them. The participants might nominate themselves, if appropriate. Two scores were
calculated for each student, according to the same formula used in the scale that
assesses the students’ position in the school hierarchies: one score for nominating a
perpetrator of aggression and the other for nominating a target of these aggressions.
With regard to this study’s control variables, the following results for compar-
isons and correlations with this variable were observed:
– Male students were nominated more often than female students, whether as
aggressors [t(272) = 7.347; p = 0.000] or victims [t(272) = 4.320; p = 0.000];
– There were no significant differences in these variables in terms of whether the
participants were religious;
2.2 Method 39
– The higher the rate of participation is as the perpetrator of aggression, the higher
the participant’s age [r(272) = 0.134; p = 0.026] and socio-economic status [r
(272) = 0.137; p = 0.024]; and
– Age and socio-economic status did not correlate with the participants who were
nominated as being targets of aggression.
Expression of Prejudice Scale (PS)
This instrument has seven questions regarding the following possible targets of
prejudice: a student with disabilities; a student who has difficulty interacting/is
autistic; a student with aggressive behaviour; a student with a different skin colour
than the participant; an effeminate male student; a masculine female student; an
aggressive student and a bad student. Five of the questions involved interacting
with each of these targets in the following situations: talking at recess; doing school
work together; inviting them home; helping with learning difficulties and being a
friend. The other two questions involved the subjects’ opinion about different tar-
gets: whether they think they are learning and whether they think they can make
friends. Each question had the following response options with the respective
scores: no—one point and yes—zero points. The score for each target was deter-
mined by summing the scores obtained for each of the seven questions, such that
the greater the score, the greater the expression of prejudice. Considering the eight
targets as items on the prejudice scale (PS), a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.84 was
obtained.
Using the principle component method to perform factor analysis, a
KMO = 0.754 was obtained, and Bartlett’s test was significant [ƛ2(28) = 991.45,
p = 0.000). The results are shown in Table 2.4.
According to Table 2.4, two factors were obtained from the expression of PS:
the first was designated prejudice against people considered weak (a = 0.851), and
the second was designated prejudice against bad students (a = 0.750).
Regarding the control variables, the following results were obtained:
– Male students showed more prejudice against targets considered weak than
female students [t(272) = 3.644; p = 0.000];
– There were no differences between male and female students in terms of prej-
udice against bad students;
Table 2.4 Factors, items and factor loadings of the expression of prejudice scale
Factor Target of prejudice Factor loading
Prejudice against people considered weak Disabilities 0.77
Autism 0.74
Effeminate 0.71
Masculine 0.69
Skin colour 0.76
Prejudice against bad students Aggressive 0.90
Bad student 0.83
– Students who followed no religion expressed more prejudice against weak

students than did students who followed a religion [t(271) = 3.686; p = 0.000];
and
– The higher the participants’ socio-economic status, the less prejudice they
expressed against those considered bad students, and vice versa [r(272) =
−0.126; p = 0.037].
Questions for Characterising Bullying
Four questions were developed to characterise bullying. One of them presents a
series of individual characteristics and asks the participants to indicate those that
describe both the perpetrator and the target of aggression. These characteristics are
fat, thin, strong, weak, wears glasses, has good grades, has bad grades, good at
sports, bad at sports, popular, unpopular, effeminate/masculine, has a disability
and is black.
There were no differences between male and female students in terms of this
characterisation, whether as aggressor or victim. The participants who follow a
religion tended to nominate students with bad grades as being aggressors more
often than those who do not [ƛ2(1) = 7.164; p = 0.007], and students who do not
follow a religion nominated unpopular students as being aggressors more often [ƛ2
(1) = 6.555; p = 0.01]. Students who follow a religion nominated skinny students
[ƛ2(1) = 9.75; p = 0.002], students who wear glasses [ƛ2(1) = 10.408; p = 0.001]
and students with disabilities [ƛ2(1) = 4.913; p = 0.018] as being victims of
aggression more often than students who do not.
The participants’ age and socio-economic status did not affect the characteristics
that they attributed to the aggressors and victims of bullying.
Another question attempted to characterise the motivations behind this aggres-
sion: a lack of affection/insecurity; they do not socialise/have no friends; they do not
receive attention at home; they are often beaten at home; they consider themselves
different from others; others do not defend themselves; they are retaliating against
the aggression they experience; they are prejudiced; they have no limits; they have
nothing to do and a lack of respect.
Female students indicated more often than male students that the aggressors’
motivations were they consider themselves different from others [ƛ(1) = 5.450;
p = 0.020; they are prejudiced [ƛ2(1) = 7.059; p = 0.008]; they have no limits [ƛ2
(1) = 24.453; p = 0.000] and a lack of respect [ƛ2(1) = 9.275; p = 0.002]. Male
students indicated more often than female students that the aggressor’s motivation
for bullying was that they have nothing to do [ƛ2(1) = 3.914; p = 0.048]. Those
with no religion indicated more often than their religious classmates that the cause
of bullying was that the aggressors are beaten at home [ƛ2(1) = 7.234; p = 0.007].
The participants who followed a religion indicated more often than those who
did not follow a religion that the motivation for bullying was they consider
themselves different from others [ƛ2(1) = 5.670; p = 0.017]; they have no limits [ƛ2
(1) = 4.909; p = 0.027] and a lack of respect [ƛ2(1) = 13.909; p = 0.000].
The age and socio-economic status variables had no influence on what the
students indicated as the motivations that led to bullying.
2.2 Method 41
There was another question that aims to characterise the feelings involved in
those who practice aggression: being popular; better than others; happy; a winner;
hated; not a loser; cowardly and brave. Whether a student followed a religion had
no relationship with what the students indicated as the aggressor’s feelings.
Because boys practice bullying much more than girls do, they clearly indicated the
above feelings more often than girls. Thus, when boys—more than girls—practice
bullying, they feel
– popular [ƛ2(1) = 8.966; p = 0.003];
– happy [ƛ2(1) = 12.157; p = 0.000];
– better than others [ƛ2(1) = 7.460; p = 0.006];
– winners [ƛ2(1) = 9.240; p = 0.002]; and
– not losers [ƛ2(1) = 5.558; p = 0.018].
The socio-economic status variable did not differ in the indications of feelings,
and age only affected the indication of not feeling like a loser [t(272) = 2.351;
p = 0.019]; the younger classmates felt this more than the others.
The last question sought to characterise the feelings of those who experience the
aggression, with the following responses: loser; disregarded/insignificant; fear;
sadness; worse than others; hate; powerless; desire for revenge and inferiority.
Whether the students followed a religion and their age did not affect the indication
of these feelings by the victim. The boys who were victims of bullying—more often
than the girls—felt like losers [ƛ2(1) = 8.966; p = 0.003], and those with a higher
socio-economic status felt more powerless as targets of bullying than their class-
mates [t(272) = 2.744; p = 0.006].
2.2.3 Data Collection Procedures
Ethical Concerns:
1. Those in charge of the schools and students signed an informed consent form to
allow the participation of students who were under the age of 18 at the time of
data collection; the school administration and the teachers interviewed also
signed this form for themselves;
2. The confidentiality of the data pertaining to the subjects and schools, as well as
their anonymity, was assured and maintained;
3. Any subject could withdraw from the study as he or she saw fit, at any time
during the research, without penalty; and
4. The research project was submitted to the Human Research Ethics Committee at
the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo and approved in March 2011.
To achieve the objectives, the following steps were performed:
– The instruments were applied three times to samples with characteristics similar
to the experimental sample, involving ninth-grade students, to test the scales and
improve them to achieve satisfactory psychometric levels; and
– The reformulated scales were applied to 274 ninth-grade students at four schools
whose characteristics were discussed in this chapter.
The data were entered into SPSS software. Pearson correlations were calculated
to assess the relationships between the variables. Student’s t test for independent
samples was used for two samples and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for
comparison between three or more groups in terms of the variables analysed.
Because there were some differences between the genders, whether they were
religious, age and socio-economic status, for the data that are presented in the next
chapter, we calculated partial correlations to extract the effects of these variables.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1995a). Educação e Emancipação [Education and Emancipation]. (W. L. Maar,

Trans.). Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Adorno, T. W. (1995b). Palavras e Sinais: modelos críticos 2 [Critical Models: Interventions and
Catchwords]. (M. H. Ruschel, Trans.). Petrópolis: Vozes.
Adorno, T. W. (2004). Teoría de la pseudocultura [Theory of Pseudo-Culture]. In: T.W. Adorno
Escritos Sociológicos I, obra completa [Adorno’s Sociological Writings I, the complete works].
8 (A. G. Ruiz, Trans.) Madri: Edicciones Akal, S.A. 39–78.
Adolescence, 30, 76–101. doi:10.1177/0272431609350922.
Development, 21(2), 376–395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x.
Crochík, J. L. (2000). Tecnologia e individualismo: um estudo de uma das relações
contemporâneas entre ideologia e personalidade [Technology and individualism: a study of
one of the contemporary relationships between ideology and personality]. Análise Psicológica,
Lisboa-Portugal, 4(XVIII), 529–543.
Crochík, J. L. (2005). Preconceito: relações com a ideologia e com a personalidade [Prejudice:
relationships with ideology and personality]. Estudos de Psicologia (PUCCAMP. Printed),
Campinas, 22(3), 309–319.
Crochík, J. L., Casco, R., Ceron, M., & Catanzaro, F. O. (2009). Relações entre preconceito, ideologia
e atitudes frente à educação inclusiva [Relationships between prejudice, ideology and attitudes
towards inclusive education]. Estudos de Psicologia (PUCCAMP. Printed), 26, 123–132.
Adolescence, 30(4), 543–566. doi:10.1177/0272431609340517.
References 43
Lasch, C. (1983). A Cultura do narcisismo [The culture of Narcissism]. Rio de Janeiro: Imago.
bullying]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 45(1), 135–145.
Li, Y., & Wright, M. F. (2014). Adolescents’ social status goals: Relationships to social status
insecurity, aggression, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 43(1), 146–160.
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9939-z.
Lopes Neto, A. (2005). Bullying: comportamento agressivo entre estudantes [Bullying: Aggressive
behaviour among students]. Jornal de Pediatria (Rio J.), 81(5), 164–172.
of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1348/2044-8279.002003.
Rouanet, S.P. (1983). Teoria Crítica e Psicanálise [Critical theory and Psychoanalysis]. Rio de
Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro.
Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Counteracting bullying in Finland: The KiVa
program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 35(5), 405–411. doi:10.1177/0165025411407457.
Chapter 3
Analysis and Discussion of the Survey
Data
3.1 Relationships Among Perceived School Performance,

Bullying and Prejudice
This section highlights and discusses the results referring to the study’s first
objective, as formulated in the previous chapter: to examine the relationships
among perceived school performance, bullying and prejudice.
3.1.1 School Performance and Violence—Self-evaluation
This item analyses the relationship between school violence, measured by the BS,
and the indicators for position in the school hierarchies (SH). The data for the
partial correlations1 are shown in Table 3.1.
According to the data in Table 3.1, there was only a significant correlation
between the total number of self-reports as a victim of the different types of vio-
lence evaluated and those nominated as being at the bottom of the unofficial
hierarchy. In other words, the more often the student was nominated as being at the
bottom of the unofficial hierarchy, the more he or she was considered to be a victim
of aggressions. According to these data, the most unpopular students and those who
are considered to be the worst in physical education are targets of the different types
of violence evaluated, which strengthens the claim of Horkheimer and Adorno
(1985), i.e. that weakness, which it is inferred that these students express, provokes
aggression from classmates.
1
As indicated in the previous chapter, the gender, religion, age and socio-economic status variables
were related or presented differences regarding the experimental variables, such that we calculated
partial correlations to remove the effect of these characteristic variables of the subjects from the
correlations between the experimental variables.

46 3 Analysis and Discussion of the Survey Data
Table 3.1 Partial correlations between the participants’ positions in school hierarchies and the
self-evaluations of aggression
School hierarchies Perpetrator of the Target of the aggression
aggression
Best in academic subjects 0.000 −0.078
Worst in academic subjects 0.043 0.024
Top of the Unofficial Hierarchy 0.068 −0.105
Bottom of the Unofficial −0.078 0.132*
Hierarchy
*p < 0.05
Because this involves self-evaluation, the perception of having been attacked

and the possibility of real aggression become confused. These students may, in fact,
be attacked more often than others and/or are more sensitive to the aggressions
actually experienced. Having poor performance in physical education may signify
poor physical dexterity; being unpopular may imply emotional rejection. These
students are most likely segregated and should not be considered to be classmates;
the violence that may befall them strengthens their exclusion. Having a heightened
sensitivity can also contribute to self-isolation, which strengthens segregation. In
this case, this self-isolation would be a response to real segregation, i.e. it would be
a reaction to the aggression experienced.
There was a significant correlation between both self-evaluations: as a perpe-
trator of aggression and as a victim [r(267) = 0.451; p = 0.00]. In other words, the
more the student evaluated him/herself as being a perpetrator of the aggressions
examined, the more he or she considered him/herself to be a victim of these
aggressions, and vice versa. One hypothesis for explaining this result is that there
may be a distinction between what different students consider to be an aggression:
some would have a broader conception, whereas others would have a narrower
conception. The former would more frequently perceive something as an aggression
against themselves and others than those who assume the aggression is a type of
game. They would be more sensitive and may be among those who react to vio-
lence and do not engage in it if they are not provoked, which strengthens the
assumption raised in the previous paragraph, i.e. when this is the case, the most
sensitive students react to the aggression experienced but do not spontaneously
practice it.
3.1.2 School Performance and Violence—Peer Evaluation
Table 3.2 contains the partial correlations between the position that the participants
occupy in the hierarchies and their classmates’ nominations regarding whether they
are perpetrators and/or targets of aggression.
3.1 Relationships Among Perceived School Performance, Bullying … 47
Table 3.2 Partial Perpetrator Victim

correlations between position
in school hierarchies and Best in academic subjects −0.147* 0.005
classmate nominations for the Worst in academic subjects 0.492** 0.237**
perpetrators and targets of Top of the Unofficial Hierarchy 0.451** −0.258**
violence Bottom of the Unofficial −0.238** 0.512**
Hierarchy
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
The more often the student was nominated by his or her peers as being a
perpetrator of aggression, the more he or she was considered to be the worst in
academic subjects and at the top of the unofficial hierarchy (best performance in
physical education and popularity), the less he or she was nominated as being the
best in academic subjects and the less he or she was considered to be at the bottom
of the unofficial hierarchy.
By observing the data shown in Table 3.2, it is also clear that the more often the
student was nominated as being a victim of aggression, the more he or she was
considered to be the worst in academic subjects, the more he or she was considered
to be at the bottom of the unofficial hierarchy and the less he or she was considered
to be at the top of the unofficial hierarchy.
These data confirm the hypothesis of this research, which claims that students
ranked at the top of the unofficial hierarchy are typically perpetrators of aggression
at school, whereas those least likely to be perpetrators of aggression are regarded as
the bottom in the unofficial hierarchy. It is also important to note that those who are
nominated least often as being the best in academic subjects are perceived as
perpetrators of aggression and that there is an inverse correlation between being
nominated as the best in academic subjects and aggression, i.e. the more frequently
the student is nominated as being the best in academic subjects, the less he or she is
the perpetrator of aggression.
Regarding perceived popularity, the same tendency was confirmed in the studies
by Garandeau et al. (2013), Ahn et al. (2010), Caravita and Cillessen (2012) and
de Bruyn et al. (2010), for whom this variable is associated with the practice of
bullying and perceived unpopularity is associated with being a victim. In terms of
physical education, the results of this study confirm those obtained by Levandoski
and Cardoso (2013) and Melim and Pereira (2015): those who were nominated as
students who excel in this subject are more associated with being the perpetrators of
bullying, and those who excel the least are more associated with being the victim.
In this sense, one of the possible meanings attributed to popularity is performance
in physical activities, emphasising that students who excel in these activities are
popular and those who do not excel tend to be considered unpopular.
It should be noted that the absence of any significant correlation between being
considered the best in academic subjects and not being a victim of violence con-
tradicts the analysis of Adorno (1995), who assumes that these students are the
victims of those who are higher in the unofficial hierarchy. Perhaps the fact that they
are at the top of one of the hierarchies inspires their classmates’ respect, given that
the idea of a hierarchy carries the notion of power. However, this power is not
exercised in the form of the aggressions evaluated because there was a significant
negative correlation between these students and the practice of aggression, which is
a good indicator that the introjection of the culture—through education but not only
school education—may stop violence. Thus, the hypothesis that the unofficial
hierarchy pushes against the official hierarchy is not fully confirmed.
Another important piece of information for thinking about the relationship
between the hierarchies and school violence is revealed in the fact that the students
nominated as being the worst in academic subjects are primarily perceived as
aggressors but also as victims. Because there is also a relationship between being at
the top of the unofficial hierarchy and being the perpetrator of aggressions, perhaps
these students are the aggressors, and the victims would be the students who are not
at the top of either of the two hierarchies, i.e. they would be nominated as being the
worst in academic subjects and also be nominated as being at the bottom of the
unofficial hierarchy.
To verify this hypothesis, we established four groups according to their com-
bined position in two hierarchies: the worst students in academic subjects and the
students at the top of the unofficial hierarchy. We used the median scores from both
hierarchies and compared them with their scores from the nominations for the
perpetrators and victims of violence. The groups that were formed consisted of the
students who were
G1—Nominated least often in the two hierarchies: scores below the median in the
hierarchy of the worst students in academic subjects and scores below the median of
the students at the top of the unofficial hierarchy;
G2—Nominated most often as being the worst in academic subjects and least often
as being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy: scores above the median in the
hierarchy of the worst students in academic subjects and scores below the median of
unofficial hierarchy;
G3—Nominated least often as being the worst in academic subjects and most often
as being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy: scores below the median in the
hierarchy of the worst students in academic subjects and scores above the median of
the students at the top of the unofficial hierarchy; and
G4—Nominated most often in both hierarchies: scores above the two medians of
these hierarchies.
Table 3.3 presents the means and standard deviations of these groups in terms of
the scores obtained from the students’ nominations for the perpetrators of violence.
As shown by the data in Table 3.3, in regard to being the perpetrators of
aggression, the mean of the students who were nominated as being the worst in
academic subjects and the best in physical education were higher than the rest of
their classmates. The results obtained from the ANOVA comparing these groups
showed that this difference was significant [F(3 and 270) = 37.745; p = 0.000].
Tukey’s test indicated that this group had significantly higher means than the other
groups, with p = 0.000.
Table 3.3 Means and standard deviations of the students nominated as being the perpetrators of
violence, according to their combined position in the hierarchies of the worst students in academic
subjects and the students at the top of the unofficial hierarchy
Frequency (%) Mean Standard Deviation
G1 76 (27.7) 2.83 6.30
G2 60 (21.9) 7.98 11.72
G3 59 (21.5) 3.33 5.87
G4 79 (28.8) 25.49 24.83
Table 3.4 contains the means and standard deviations of these groups in terms of
the students nominated as being the targets of violence.
According to the data in Table 3.4, the students who were nominated most often
as being the worst in academic subjects and least often as being at the top of the
unofficial hierarchy were perceived as being the victims of violence significantly
more often than their classmates from other groups. The result of the ANOVA
indicated that this difference was significant [F(2 and 270) = 6.328; p = 0.000].
Tukey’s test showed that this distinction was between this group and the group
formed by students who did not excel in either of the hierarchies (p = 0.036) and
the group that contained the students who were nominated least often as being the
worst in academic subjects and most often as being at the top of the unofficial
hierarchy (p = 0.000). There was no significant difference compared to the group
that contained the students nominated most often in both hierarchies.
The aforementioned results for Tables 3.3 and 3.4 show that there is a tendency
for the students perceived as being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy and the worst
in academic subjects to be considered the perpetrators of the aggressions examined
and for those nominated most often as being the worst in academic subjects and least
often as being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy to be considered the victims of
these aggressions. Regarding Adorno’s (1995) description of the two school hier-
archies and the unofficial hierarchy’s antagonism towards the official hierarchy,
based on the highlighted data, it is possible to affirm that the students who excel in
the unofficial hierarchy turn against their classmates from the other hierarchy but
only against those at the bottom; the main victims include those nominated
most often as being at the bottom of both the unofficial and the official hierarchies.
These results corroborate those of Strøm et al. (2013), Mehta et al. (2013),
Table 3.4 Means and standard deviations of the students nominated as being the targets of
violence, according to their combined position in the hierarchies of the worst students in academic
subjects and the students at the top of the unofficial hierarchy
Frequency (%) Mean Standard Deviation
G1 76 (27.7) 8.80 13.71
G2 60 (21.9) 16.40 22.07
G3 59 (21.5) 3.50 6.87
G4 79 (28.8) 9.55 18.18
Juvonen et al. (2011) and Kowalski and Limber (2013), who find inverse relation-
ships between school violence and academic performance: the greater the former, the
worse the latter.
The correlation between the student’s being nominated as the perpetrator and
victim of aggression is not significant [r(267) = −0.097; p = 0.112]. Unlike the
self-evaluation of the aggression experienced and/or practiced, the classmates’
nominations show a clear distinction between aggressors and their victims. Juvonen
et al. (2011) also find a low correlation between peer nominations of aggression and
self-evaluations of practicing and experiencing aggression. These data contribute to
studies on school violence that use more than only the subjects’ self-evaluation;
peer nomination seems to be more accurate because there are several students who
make the nomination. Regardless, with self-evaluation, different aspects of the
phenomenon may be in question: some may believe that they are attacking when
they are not, and others may believe that they are targets when they are not.
3.1.3 School Performance and Bullying
The results referring to bullying itself, the participants’ involvement in this form of
school violence and the means and standard deviations of the students’ positions in
the school hierarchies are shown in Table 3.5.
By analysing Table 3.5, it is possible to conclude the following:
– Those nominated most often as being the best in academic subjects are con-
sidered to be either perpetrators or victims of aggression. However, the differ-
ence between the groups, evaluated by ANOVA, reveals no significant
differences between the types of involvement in bullying [F(3 and 270) = 0.269;
p = 0.848];
– Those considered to be the worst in academic subjects do not have means
different from their other classmates in terms of their involvement in bullying [F
(3 and 270) = 0.121; p = 0.948];
– Those nominated as being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy are less often
considered to be victims; this difference is not significant [F(3 and
270) = 2.156; p = 0.094]; and
– Those nominated as being at the bottom of the unofficial hierarchy are less often
considered to be perpetrators of aggression; this difference is also not significant
[F(3 and 270) = 2.261; p = 0.082].
Although there has been no significant difference with regard to the participants’
involvement in bullying, it is interesting to note that the tendencies observed in
Table 3.5 indicate that students who consider themselves to be victims tend to be
nominated less often as being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy and those who
consider themselves to be perpetrators of aggression are nominated less often as
being at the bottom of the unofficial hierarchy. Although these tendencies are not
Table 3.5 Means and standard deviations of positions in school hierarchies and the type of
involvement in bullying
Neither victim nor Victim (39) Perpetrator Perpetrator
perpetrator (199) and victim (16)
(20)
Best in academic 11.64(18.97) 13.29(22.52) 8.59(19.14) 13.04(26.15)
subjects
Worst in academic 9.73(15.81) 10.41(16.49) 11.61(15.19) 11.03(12.96)
subjects
Top of the 11.93(16.49) 5.05(7.33) 10.71(17.10) 9.52(16.25)
Unofficial
Hierarchy
Bottom of the 9.75(12.77) 14.85(15.65) 9.14(11.52) 6.51(6.53)
Unofficial
Hierarchy
significant, they indicate that the same relationships are found when perpetrators
and victims are nominated by their classmates.
3.1.4 School Performance and Prejudice
Table 3.6 contains the correlations between the prejudice expressed against targets
considered to be weak and those perceived as bad students as well as their position
in the official and unofficial hierarchies.
The data from Table 3.6 show that the more often a student is nominated as
being the best in academic subjects, the less prejudice they express, and the more
often they are nominated as being the worst in academic subjects, the more prej-
udice they express against targets considered to be weak. These data complement
the above data on the school hierarchy concept, particularly in relation to encour-
aging force against those who are unable to defend themselves. Students with
disabilities, autistic behaviours, different skin colours, or a more effeminate or
Table 3.6 Partial correlations between positions in school hierarchies and the expression of
prejudice
Prejudice against weak Prejudice against bad Prejudice
targets students
Best in academic subjects −0.115 −0.106 −0.129*
Worst in academic 0.157* −0.087 −0.087
subjects
Top of the Unofficial 0.101 −0.093 −0.113
Hierarchy
Bottom of the Unofficial 0.033 0.035 0.039
Hierarchy
*p < 0.05
masculine gender presentation attract the aggression of those who fare worse in
academic subjects, whereas those nominated as being the best students in academic
subjects tend not to express prejudice against these targets. As Horkheimer and
Adorno (1985) argue, a person who cannot sufficiently incorporate the culture tends
to resent it and may look for a ‘scapegoat’ upon which to vent their fury; those who
are more adapted to the culture do not need to do so.
Considering the results presented in the previous item, referring to the fact that
the worst students in academic subjects include aggressors and those perceived as
being at the top of the unofficial hierarchy, we can assume that those with the best
positions in this hierarchy do not turn against those with the best positions in the
other hierarchy, i.e. good students. Instead, they turn against students considered to
be weak: those with disabilities, autism, a different skin colour than their own, and
effeminate boys and masculine girls. In this regard, it is interesting to note that
Adorno (1995)—based on research conducted by Else Frenkel-Brunswik, who
worked with him on the study of the authoritarian personality—states that students
who are considered to be disciplined will become autonomous adults with their own
thoughts whereas those who are considered to be refractory in school will always
repeat the same discourses.
Perhaps there has been a change in perception regarding those who are con-
sidered good students—now called ‘nerds’—who become prestigious, even though
their formation is increasingly less critical and increasingly more adaptive, technical
and pragmatic (Adorno 1995). However, one must not overlook the fact that the
incorporation of school subjects and school education may be an antidote to prej-
udice; in this sense, the official hierarchy reveals the importance of this content.
It is important to note that although school aggression is related to school
hierarchies, there is less prejudice, which indicates that one of these variables is not
reducible to the other. The violence examined, and the bullying that is defined by it,
seems to be more related to school hierarchies than to prejudice, which would
indicate that the question of dominance and submission is inherent to it. In preju-
dice, however, the specificity of the target that is related to their psychic needs—
linked to the fear and desires that they should reject—seems to be more present
(Crochik 2015). However, one cannot fail to consider that the difference between
the expression of bullying and the expression of prejudice may be due to the
manner in which they are measured in this study.
3.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice

and Adherence to the Ideology of Authoritarianism
and Autonomy from the School Authority
This item presents the data referring to the study’s second objective: to examine the
relationships between bullying and prejudice, on one hand, and adherence to the
ideology of authoritarianism and autonomy from the school authority, on the other
3.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice and Adherence … 53
hand. To that end, the participants’ responses on the bullying, school hierarchy,
fascism and autonomy from authority scales were used.
3.2.1 Relationships Between Bullying and Adherence

to the Ideology of Authoritarianism
The data regarding the correlations between the nominations and self-reports related
to bullying and the scores on the F-scale are shown in Table 3.7.
According to the data from Table 3.7, there is a significant correlation between
self-reporting as a perpetrator of aggression and authoritarianism: the more
authoritarian the student is, the less he or she is nominated as being an aggressor.
The reason may be that the less authoritarian the participant is, the greater his or her
sensitivity, which strengthens the interpretation given above in relation to the
significant correlation found between self-reporting as a perpetrator and as a target
of bullying, i.e. some participants are more sensitive to violence and would react as
a form of defence.
The participants’ type of involvement in bullying—none, victim, victim and
aggressor, and aggressor—is compared to the scores obtained on the F-scale. The
results of the ANOVA are shown in Table 3.8.
There is a significant difference in terms of adherence to the fascist ideology and
the type of involvement in bullying. This difference is between those who have no
participation in bullying, who have higher scores than those who are simultaneously
victims and perpetrators [t(217) = 2.567, p = 0.011], which leads one to think that,
as assumed above, their aggression is a form of defence; the students who are most
Table 3.7 Partial correlations between the participants’ nominations and self-reports as
perpetrators and targets of aggression and authoritarianism
F-scale
Peer nomination Perpetrator −0.043
Target −0.005
Self-report Perpetrator −0.122*
Target −0.106
*p < 0.05
Table 3.8 Means and standard deviations obtained on the fascism scale by the type of
involvement in bullying
Involvement Mean and Standard Deviation Statistical results
None 4.51 (0.77) F(3 and 270) = 3.33; p = 0.02
Target 4.50 (0.58)
Target and perpetrator 4.03 (1.02)
Perpetrator 4.14 (0.76)
sensitive to violence may be those who perceive the impact that it has on them. In
terms of the adherence to the fascist ideology, there are no significant differences
between the other comparisons among the types of involvement in bullying.
It should be remembered that the scores on this scale range from one to seven
points, and therefore, the scores obtained, in addition to those shown in the table
above, are slightly above the midpoint (four points), indicating that there is a slight
tendency, on average, for this study’s participants to agree with fascist statements.
3.2.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Autonomy

from the School Authority
The correlations between nominations and self-reports related to violence and the
factors from the A-scale are shown in Table 3.9.
As the data in Table 3.9 indicate, there is no significant correlation between
autonomy from authority and nominations and self-reports as a perpetrator and
target of aggression.
Table 3.10 contains the means and standard deviations of the scores obtained on
the A-scale and its factors, according to the type of involvement in bullying.
Table 3.9 Partial correlations between the nominations and self-reports related to aggression and
autonomy from the school authority
Punishment Rejection Rejection Autonomy from
and of of the School
Obedience Authority Punishment Authority
Nomination Perpetrator −0.052 0.013 0.060 0.003
Target 0.015 −0.003 −0.063 −0.021
Self-report Perpetrator −0.113 −0.010 −0.099 −0.115
Target −0.103 −0.031 −0.020 −0.084
Table 3.10 Means and standard deviations obtained on the Autonomy from School Authority
Scale according to the type of involvement in bullying
Involvement Punishment and Rejection of Rejection of Autonomy from the
Obedience Authority Punishment School Authority
None 4.97(1.33) 3.74(1.71) 3.28(1.55) 4.09(0.98)
Target 5.22(1.06) 3.48(1.45) 3.09(1.45) 4.06(0.73)
Target and 4.15(1.73) 3.68(1.78) 3.35(1.52) 3.77(1.12)
perpetrator
Perpetrator 4.13(1.65) 3.48(1.39) 3.17(1.41) 3.64(0.99)
Statistical F(3 and 270) =
results 4.751; p < 0.01
Considering that the scores on the A-scale can also range from one to seven
points, the data in Table 3.10 show that, on average, the overall scores are close to
the midpoint. Analysing the means of the factors, the scores of the first—punish-
ment and obedience—lie above this midpoint, whereas the other two—which refer
to the rejection of authority and punishment—are below four points. This finding
seems to indicate that there is a defence of the need to obey authority and a defence
of punishment when the rules are violated, which may reveal the formation of an
external moral consciousness for guiding individual behaviour and the recognition
that an external authority is necessary to curb indiscipline.
Partial correlations between the scores obtained for the A-scale factors and the
nominations related to school performance in academic subjects are calculated. Two
are significant: one positively relates the ‘obedience and punishment’ factor with
the nomination for being the best in academic subjects [r(272) = 0.190; p < 0.01];
the other involves—although now inversely—this same factor and the nomination
for being the worst in academic subjects [r(272) = −0.204; p < 0.01].
As discussed in the first chapter, good school performance may be associated
with adaptation, as defined by Adorno (2004), which may mean that a moral
consciousness has not sufficiently formed in these students; it may indicate that
values and rules are known but not integrated, which can be inferred from the study
by Roth et al. (2010). The students who are nominated as being the worst in
academic subjects and who are opposed to the statements in this factor also seem to
have not yet developed autonomy; it is possible they have not even incorporated
rules. It should also be noted, in accordance with the data obtained by Adorno et al.
(1950), that an unconditional defence of authority refers to the authoritarian per-
sonality type whereas a rejection of authority characterises the rebellious or
delinquent type.
According to the data in Table 3.10, there are only significant differences
between the groups for the ‘punishment and obedience’ factor [F(3 and
270) = 4.751; p < 0.01]. Comparing the group of targets with the group of per-
petrators, there is a significant difference [t(53) = 2.959; p < 0.05] for the pun-
ishment and obedience factor. Furthermore, according to the data in Table 3.10, the
students who are only considered to be the targets of bullying agree more with the
statements contained in this factor than do the perpetrators of aggression. Perhaps
part of the explanation for why they do not fight back against the violence expe-
rienced—which characterises the target of bullying—is due to this respect for and
obedience to authority, which can and should represent a criticism of peer violence,
as is the case of bullying.
The groups of non-participants and those who are involved as both victims and
perpetrators of aggression are also compared for the same factor. Once again, the
difference is significant [t(217) = 2.548; p < 0.05]. This result strengthens the prior
finding because those who are not involved in bullying show agreement with
having a greater respect for and obedience to authority than their classmates who
are involved in the two roles. Naturally, the school authority should intervene when
it observes students being aggressive towards others; punishment, as a represen-
tative of rules—when they are rational—contrasts with the impunity that, according
to Bleichmar (2008), singlehandedly contributes to a state of social confusion. Roth

et al. (2010) also argue that when there is a considerable amount of violence in
schools, it becomes necessary to control it through coercion, before students can
integrate the rules to be respected. However, if we think about what generates
violence from the perspective of those who are involved in it, the manner in which
the authority acts in these situations—namely, if he or she chooses coercion—may
make it more difficult for him or her to perform educational activities such as
debate, providing information and creating an awareness of suffering (Adorno et al.
1950; Crochik 2012; Hein et al. 2015).
3.2.3 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice
Table 3.11 contains the correlations between the factors from the Prejudice Scale
and the nominations and self-reports related to school violence.
Based on the data observed in Table 3.11, there is only one significant corre-
lation: the more often the student is nominated as being a perpetrator of aggression,
the less he or she expresses prejudice against his or her classmates who are con-
sidered to be bad students. This result is a sign that the perpetrators of aggression
may be bad students and thus have no prejudice against themselves. However, the
less often they are nominated as being aggressors, the greater their prejudice against
bad students, given that they may tend to be their victims. This finding strengthens
the study’s hypothesis, which indicates that school performance is associated with
violence, given the prejudice directed towards bad students.
The participants’ type of involvement in bullying is also compared in terms of
the prejudiced expressed against the weakest students and bad students. The data on
this comparison are shown in Table 3.12.
According to the data in Table 3.12, there seems to be little difference between
the type of involvement in bullying and the expression of prejudices; in fact, using
the ANOVA test, no significant differences are found. Nevertheless, it is interesting
to note that the students who practice violence have more prejudices against targets
who are considered to be weak and that those who are targets or have no
involvement in bullying situations have more prejudice against those who are
Table 3.11 Partial correlations between the nominations and self-reports related to aggression
and the expression of prejudice
Prejudice against weak Prejudice against bad Prejudice
targets students
Nomination Perpetrator 0.055 −0.125* −0.006
Target 0.061 0.110 0.089
Self-report Perpetrator 0.005 −0.104 −0.036
Target −0.032 −0.010 −0.028
*p < 0.05
Table 3.12 Means and standard deviations obtained on the Expression of Prejudice Scale,
according to the type of involvement in bullying
Involvement Prejudice against weak Prejudice against bad Prejudice
targets students
None (n = 199) 1.35(1.38) 3.45(2.06) 1.87(1.34)
Target (n = 39) 1.40(1.17) 3.65(1.94) 1.96(1.17)
Perpetrator and Target 1.85(1.50) 2.88(1.81) 2.11(1.41)
(n = 20)
Perpetrator (n = 16) 1.70(1.42) 2.84(1.65) 1.98(1.29)
considered to be bad students. This fact seems to strengthen the tendency found,
which indicates that there is a relationship between prejudice and the self-evaluation
as an aggressor and a target.
It is also important to re-emphasise that the data in this item indicate that
prejudice and bullying are not the same phenomenon, given the near absence of
correlations and differences between the types of involvement in bullying and
prejudice. This finding contradicts the claims of Antunes and Zuin (2008), i.e. that
bullying is a new name for prejudice. As Crochik (2015) can argue, although they
may sometimes act in concert, the motivation behind each of these forms of vio-
lence is different: in prejudice, the target is more clearly defined and the motivation
stems from the necessary projection of desires and fears onto the target, whereas
bullying involves the desire for submission and all that is required is that the target
does not have a sufficient response to stop the aggression.
3.3 Characteristics of the Perpetrators and Victims

of School Violence, Individual Motivations
for the Aggression and Feelings Caused in the Victims
This part of the chapter presents data on the study’s third objective: to describe the
characteristics of the perpetrators and victims of school violence, the individual
motivations for the aggression and the feelings caused in the victims.
Table 3.13 contains the data on the participants’ characterisation of the
aggressors and targets of bullying.
As shown in the data in the table above, the main characteristics attributed to the
perpetrators of aggression are being thin, being strong, receiving bad grades, being
good at sports and being popular; being good at sports, being popular and receiving
bad grades are in line with the relationship between the unofficial hierarchy and
bullying, as discussed in this chapter. The same can be said for the main charac-
teristics attributed to the targets of bullying, i.e. being weak, being bad at sports and
Table 3.13 Frequency and percentage of the characteristics attributed by the participants to the
perpetrators of aggression and their targets
Characteristics Perpetrator Target
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Fat 52 19.0 167 60.9
Thin 149 54.4 140 50.4
Strong 194 69.8 49 17.9
Weak 42 15.3 193 70.7
Glasses 36 13.1 126 45.3
Good grades 58 21.2 159 58.0
Bad grades 164 59.9 66 24.1
Good at sports 159 58.0 57 20.8
Bad at sports 67 24.5 149 54.4
Popular 165 60.2 43 15.7
Unpopular 52 19.0 153 55.8
Effeminate/masculine 59 21.5 112 40.9
Disability 18 6.6 114 41.6
Black 88 32.2 105 37.8
being considered unpopular, although the above results indicate that the target of
bullying is not nominated as being a good student by his or her classmates.
Table 3.14 shows the frequencies and percentages of the motivations that lead to
bullying, according to the participants.
According to the data in Table 3.14, the main motivations that lead students to
be perpetrators of aggression are ‘has no limits’, ‘has nothing to do’ and ‘lack of
respect’. The first and last of these motivations for the practice of school aggression
refer to the lack of a sufficient formation to be able to perceive oneself and others,
which is associated with the possibility of making other people’s interests one’s
Table 3.14 Frequency and Frequency Percentage

percentage of nominations
regarding the motivations that Insecurity 54 19.7
lead someone to be the Has no friends 31 11.3
perpetrator of aggression Does not receive attention 72 26.3
Beaten at home 38 13.9
Different from others 78 28.5
Others do not defend themselves 78 28.5
Retaliates against aggression 53 19.4
Prejudice 83 30.3
Has no limits 134 48.9
Has nothing to do 164 59.9
Lack of respect 154 56.2
3.3 Characteristics of the Perpetrators and Victims of School … 59
own, according to Horkheimer and Adorno (1985). The claim that ‘they have
nothing to do’ may suggest that these students are not devoting attention to aca-
demic activities, perhaps because they lack the interest or because they feel seg-
regated because the other students believe that they are unable to learn, which
would lead them to have little interest in learning what is taught.
Table 3.15 presents the frequency and percentage of what the participants
believe to be the advantages that the perpetrators of aggression experience with the
practice of school violence.
The data in Table 3.15 indicate that the study’s participants most often believe
that the perpetrators of school violence experience the advantages of ‘having fun’,
‘irritating others’ and ‘getting attention’. As can be assumed by the responses
contained in Table 3.14, the fact that the perpetrators of bullying are believed to
want to ‘get attention’ strengthens the hypothesis that they do not feel like they are
part of the group or are looking for a prominence that they cannot obtain through
their school performance. The pleasure that they may obtain from ‘having fun’ and
‘irritating others’ indicates problems in formation. It is true that they are all
approximately 14 years old, but one may think that they should already have
sufficient maturity to realise that collective life and respect are necessary for the
happiness and freedom of everyone.
The frequency and percentage of what the participants believe the perpetrators of
aggression feel are shown in Table 3.16.
According to the data in Table 3.16, the most common feelings attributed to
those who practice school aggression are happiness, cowardice, bravery and not
being a loser. Once again, the students indicate a disregard for others, which is
given by happiness in attacking them and the need to be respected to not feel like a
loser.
Table 3.17 shows the frequency and percentage of what the participants believe
is felt by those who experience school violence.
According to the data in the table above, hatred and feelings of revenge are the
most frequent feelings attributed to those who experience aggression. As argued by
Pinheiro and Williams (2009), these feelings are conducive to resentment and the
desire to retaliate, which can lead to mass killings at schools, as illustrated by the
attacks at universities in the United States, which also occur in other countries.
Although the humiliation of those who feel aggrieved can generate resentment, they
can also paradoxically be stimuli for defending the very hierarchical structure that
Table 3.15 Frequency and Feeling Frequency Percentage

percentage of nominations
related to the feelings that the Strength 97 35.4
participants believe are Superiority 117 42.7
experienced by those who are Disturbed 86 31.4
perpetrators of aggression Having fun 164 59.9
Irritating 137 50.2
Get attention 187 68.2
Table 3.16 Frequency and How the perpetrator of the Frequency Percentage
percentage of what the aggression feels
participants believe is felt by
the perpetrators of school Popular 31 11.3
violence Happy 55 20.1
Hated 24 8.8
Cowardly 49 17.9
Brave 50 18.2
Better than others 29 10.6
A winner 22 8.0
Not a loser 48 17.5
Table 3.17 Frequency and How the target of aggression felt Frequency Percentage
percentage of what the
participants believe the target A loser 31 11.3
of aggression feels Fear 19 6.9
Worse 32 11.5
Powerless 11 4.0
Inferior 16 5.9
Insignificant 27 9.9
Sadness 67 24.5
Hatred 96 35.0
Desire for revenge 84 30.7
generates violence and for turning against those who are at the bottom of this
hierarchy. This phenomenon seems to occur in the violent initiation ceremonies for
adolescents who intend to join a gang or in college hazing: those who have to make
a sacrifice will also demand a sacrifice from those who come later. It would also be
important for the student who experiences aggression to be able to understand that
he or she is not responsible for the violence that is inflicted upon him or her and to
seek non-violent ways to prevent this aggression, rather than reproducing it among
his or her classmates.
3.4 Hierarchies, Prejudice and School Violence Against

Students in an Inclusive Situation
The results concerning the study’s fourth objective are presented here. This
objective is established as follows: to examine the relationships between, on one
hand, prejudice against students in an inclusive situation and, on the other hand,
school violence and positions in school hierarchies. This study considers students in
an inclusive situation to be those who have a disability, autism, a different skin
3.4 Hierarchies, Prejudice and School Violence Against Students … 61
Table 3.18 Means and standard deviations of prejudice directed towards students in an inclusive
situation
Prejudice Mean Standard Deviation
Disability 1.47 1.70
Autistic 1.72 1.76
Skin colour 0.56 1.23
Effeminate male 2.12 2.32
Masculine female 1.60 2.00
colour, or an effeminate or masculine gender presentation. Table 3.18 shows the

means and standard deviations of the expression of prejudice directed towards these
students.
As shown, the measures of prejudice have a low magnitude, considering that the
score ranges from zero to seven points; the prejudice with the highest magnitude is
that directed towards male students who are considered effeminate.
Table 3.19 shows the correlations between prejudice against these students and
the position that the participants occupy in the school hierarchies.
As shown in Table 3.19, performance in academic subjects, which correspond to
the official hierarchy, tends to be inversely correlated with prejudice against stu-
dents with a different skin colour, which indicates that school formation can con-
tribute to not developing prejudices. Naturally, because this relationship is a
correlation, there may be another common cause for these variables, such as overall
formation, which may be responsible for prominence in the official school hierarchy
and for not developing prejudices in relation to the evaluated characteristics. This
hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that there are direct and significant correla-
tions between being the worst in academic subjects and the prejudices related to
skin colour and effeminate or masculine gender presentation, i.e. the worse their
school performance is judged to be, the greater their prejudice against these
students.
Table 3.19 Partial correlations between prejudice against students in an inclusive situation and
positions in the school hierarchies
Prejudice Best in Worst in Top of the Bottom of the
academic academic unofficial unofficial hierarchy
subjects subjects hierarchy
Disability −0.052 −0.083 0.066 0.050
Autistic −0.061 0.004 0.072 −0.015
Skin colour −0.130* −0.110 0.224** −0.035
Effeminate −0.091 −0.108 0.125* 0.046
male
Mannish −0.109 −0.064 0.126* 0.046
female
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
It is important to note that the data in Table 3.19 show that there is no correlation
between the students’ position at the bottom of the unofficial and official hierar-
chies, on one hand, and prejudice, on the other hand. Poor school performance,
poor performance in physical education and unpopularity are not significantly
related to prejudice.
Another important fact is the absence of a correlation between school perfor-
mance in official and unofficial hierarchies and prejudice against students with
disabilities and autism. Perhaps the prejudices directed against them act such that
they are not excluded or integrated but often remain on the margins of the group, as
illustrated by Crochik et al. (2013).
Table 3.20 presents the correlations between the prejudice towards students in
an inclusive situation and the nominations and self-reports related to violence.
The data in Table 3.20 indicate that school violence and prejudice against stu-
dents in an inclusive situation are not associated, which indicates that they are
distinct phenomena, as argued by Crochik (2015), even though they can sometimes
be associated. The only significant correlation found is between nominations related
to aggression and prejudice against students with a different skin colour: the more
often a student is nominated as a perpetrator of aggression, the more often this
prejudice is expressed.
Considering the data in Table 3.13, the students who are considered to be per-
petrators or victims are not disabled, are not black or do not have an effeminate or
masculine gender presentation among their primary characteristics, which contra-
dicts what is indicated by Fante (2005), i.e. that students with disabilities tend to be
victims of bullying more often than other students.
Regarding autonomy from the school authority, there is a correlation with the
prejudice directed towards weak students [r(266) = 0.191; p = 0.002], but the same
magnitude of correlation is also obtained for less autonomous students with prej-
udice against those considered who are bad students [r(266) = 0.191; p = 0.002],
which should also receive attention from inclusive education.
To conclude this chapter, it is important to note the main research results and
describe their relationship with the objectives.
In terms of the first objective, which considers the relationships among perceived
school performance, bullying and prejudice, the following can be noted:
Table 3.20 Partial correlations between the prejudice directed towards students in an inclusive
situation and the nominations and self-reports related to school violence
Prejudice Nomination Self-report
Perpetrator Target Perpetrator Target
Disability −0.008 −0.049 0.019 0.039
Autistic 0.025 −0.023 −0.017 −0.005
Skin colour 0.134* −0.022 −0.043 −0.056
Effeminate male 0.058 0.097 0.000 −0.064
Masculine female 0.041 0.095 −0.011 −0.090
*p < 0.05
3.4 Hierarchies, Prejudice and School Violence Against Students … 63
(a) The perpetrators of school aggression tend to be the students at the top of the
unofficial hierarchy, i.e. those nominated most often as being the best in
physical education and those most often perceived as being popular, and those
who are nominated most often as being at the bottom of the official hierarchy in
academic subjects;
(b) The targets of school aggression are inclined to be those perceived as being the
worst in academic subjects and those who are nominated least often as being at
the top of the unofficial hierarchy;
(c) Those who are nominated as being at the bottom of the unofficial hierarchy are
also prime targets of school violence;
(d) The students considered to be the best in academic subjects tend not to expe-
rience or practice school violence; and
(e) The more students are considered to be the best in academic subjects, the less
prejudice they express.
Regarding the second objective, ‘to examine the relationships among bullying,
prejudice, adherence to the ideology of authoritarianism and autonomy from the
school authority’, among others, the following results can be highlighted:
(a) The students who express the authoritarian ideology tend to be among those
who do not practice or experience bullying;
(b) The students who least express the ideology that characterises authoritarianism
are those who are simultaneously victims and perpetrators of bullying;
(c) The students who experience bullying tend to be those who believe that respect
for authority and punishment for infractions should be necessary;
(d) The more often the student is nominated as being the perpetrator of aggression,
the more often he or she is nominated as being prejudiced against those who are
considered weaker; and
(e) There is no relationship between bullying and prejudice.
The main results concerning the third objective, ‘to describe the characteristics
of the perpetrators and victims of school violence, the individual motivations for
aggression and the feelings caused in the victims’, are as follows:
(a) The perpetrators of aggression are characterised as being: strong, good at
sports, bad students and popular;
(b) According to the participants, the main attributes of the targets of aggression are
being: weak, good students and bad at sports;
(c) The motivations attributed to the perpetrators of aggression are: a lack of
respect, having nothing to do and not having limits; and
(d) The feelings caused in the targets of aggression are hatred and feelings of
revenge.
Finally, regarding the study’s last objective, ‘to examine the relationships
between, on one hand, prejudice against students in an inclusive situation and, on
the other hand, school violence and positions in school hierarchies’, the following
results can be highlighted:
(a) The more the students are considered to be the best in academic subjects, the
less prejudiced they tend to be towards students with a different skin colour
than their own;
(b) The more the students excel in the unofficial hierarchy, the more inclined they
are to be prejudiced against students with a different skin colour than their own
as well as effeminate male students and masculine female students; and
(c) There is no relationship between the students’ position in the different school
hierarchies and the fact that they are an aggressor or victim or are prejudiced
against students with disabilities and those who are considered to be autistic.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1995). Educação e Emancipação [Education and emancipation] (W. L. Maar,

Adorno, T. W. (2004). Teoría de la pseudocultura [Theory of Pseudo-Culture]. In: T.W. Adorno
Escritos Sociológicos I, obra completa [Adorno’s sociological writings I, the complete
works] 8 (A. G. Ruiz, Trans.) (pp. 39–78). Madri: Edicciones Akal, S.A.
Adolescence, 30, 76–101. doi:10.1177/0272431609350922
Antunes, D. C., & Zuin, A. A. S. (2008). Do bullying ao preconceito: Os desafios da barbárie à
Psicologia & Sociedade, 20(1), 33–41. doi:10.1590/S0102-71822008000100004
Bleichmar, S. (2008). Violencia Social—violencia escolar: de la puesta de limites a la
construcción de legalidades. Buenos Aires: Centro de Publicaciones educativas y material
didáctico.
Development, 21(2), 376–395. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00632.x
Crochik, J. L. (2012). Fatores psicológicos e sociais associados ao bullying [Psychological and
social factors associated with bullying]. Revista Psicologia política, 12(24), 211–229 [online].
Crochik, J.L.; Kohatsu, L.N., Dias, M.A., Freller, C.C., & Casco, R. (2013). Inclusão e
discriminação na educação escolar [Inclusion and discrimination in school education].
Campinas: Alínea Editora.
Crochik, J. L. (2015). Formas de violência escolar: preconceito e bullying [Forms of school
violence: Prejudice and bullying]. Movimento - Revista de Educação, 3, 29–56.
Adolescence, 30(4), 543–566. doi:10.1177/0272431609340517
References 65
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1985). Dialética do Esclarecimento [Dialectic of
enlightenment] (G. A. de Almeida, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.
Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic
performance across middle school grades. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152–173.
doi:10.1177/0272431610379415
bullying]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 45(1), 135–145.
Mehta, S. B., Cornell, D., Fan, X., & Gregory, A. (2013). Bullying climate and school engagement
in ninth-grade students. Journal of School Health, 83(1), 45–52. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.
2012.00746.x
Melim, F. M. O., & Pereira, M. B. F. L. de O. (2015). A influência da Educação Física no bullying
escolar: A solução ou parte do problema? [The influence of Physical education on school
bullying: The solution or part of the problem?]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 67(1),
65–84 (15/01/15).
Pinheiro, F. M. F., & Williams, L. C. A. (2009). Violência intrafamiliar e intimidação entre colegas
no ensino fundamental [Family violence and bullying among classmates in primary school].
Cadernos de Pesquisa, 39(138), 995–1018. doi:10.1590/S0100-15742009000300015
Strøm, I. F., Thoresen, S., Wentzel-Larsen, T., & Dyb, G. (2013). Violence, bullying and academic
achievement: A study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school environment. Child Abuse &
Neglect.
Chapter 4
Proposals for Addressing School Violence
The main research objective is to study school violence, expressed in bullying and
prejudice, and to reflect on some of its possible determinants: school hierarchies,
the defence of an authoritarian ideology and autonomy from the teacher’s authority.
First, it is important to note that there is almost no significant relationship
between bullying and prejudice, unlike what has been argued by some authors, such
as Antunes and Zuin (2008). If bullying is more related to submission, then the
issue of school hierarchies—which are characterised by the relationship between
dominance and submission—seems to be more conducive to it. If prejudice
involves psychological issues that should be associated with an external object, then
rational argument can be important. However, it is not sufficient for those who have
the most ingrained prejudice; their hidden fears and desires must be understood.
Regardless, if they are different, then there must be different measures to fight them.
Regarding hierarchies, the data in this study indicate that, as proposed by
Adorno (1995a), the unofficial hierarchy—constituted by the students’ performance
in physical education and their popularity or unpopularity—tends to be antagonistic
to the official hierarchy—formed by the students’ performance in academic subjects
—but with an important distinction: those at the top of the official hierarchy tend
not to harass or be harassed by their classmates. The results obtained by Kowalski
and Limber (2013) strengthen this assertion: those who are involved in bullying, as
both perpetrators and victims of aggression, have worse grades in academic subjects
than those who are not involved in this form of aggression.
Furthermore, Adorno wrote this text in the 1960s, and the perception of those
who excel in academic subjects may have changed. These students have become
more valued, such that ambiguity towards intellectual activities has decreased and
these activities are perceived as being necessary to performing professional duties
that are socially recognised and well compensated, particularly if, as the author
insists, they are directed towards adapting the existing society rather than criticising
it, which would enable it to become more fair and just.
Although Adorno (1995a) proposed that all school education should be—first
and foremost—political and that it would have been difficult to alter the social
68 4 Proposals for Addressing School Violence
objective conditions in the 1960s to prevent the occurrence of new genocides, the
author did not fail to indicate that this education should be focused on strengthening
the subject. However, this strengthening should not be reduced to adaptation but
rather the development of a consciousness that is capable of perceiving and criti-
cising social injustices, which the school hierarchies studied can help reproduce.
Those who excel in the unofficial hierarchy but not in the other (good students in
physical education but not in academic subjects) tend1 not to focus their contempt
on those who are at the top of the official hierarchy but rather on those, similar to
themselves, who are considered the worst in academic subjects. Thus, their per-
formance in activities that require physical dexterity and their popularity may serve
as compensation for their poor performance in academic subjects. This result should
not be understood as a criticism of physical education; rather, it should highlight the
fact that it sometimes involves victory and the devaluation of those who lose or
physical strength and skill to the detriment of physical limits but not necessarily
knowledge and a development of the body that is also focused on sensitivity.
Physical education’s importance to formation is undeniable, but for it to achieve
its purpose, it seems necessary to develop the student’s awareness of the body’s
limits. However, this recognition should not lead to resignation. There is a dialectic
of limits (Crochík 2003): although they create a need to overcome them, it is
important to emphasise that either physical and psychological pain are not needed
to overcome them or it is important to always continue developing. According to
Adorno (1995a), learning to endure pain can evoke the desire to cause pain in
others because masochism and sadism are related. From the psychic perspective,
Freud (1986) indicates that those who develop a strict moral consciousness tend to
require much from others. However, there would be no human progress if limits
were not overcome, and therefore, the question is one of whether there should be
sacrifices in a society—such as the society that currently exists—with an abundant
material production; the unnecessary demand for sacrifices is inherent to a fascist
society. Horkheimer and Adorno (1985) stress that, when the individual must make
a sacrifice for the collective that does not further his or her development, this
sacrifice can be considered a swindle. In other words, when individual renuncia-
tions on behalf of the collective involve this individual’s own development, it is not
a sacrifice; otherwise, it is.
One question may be: if the objective of physical education is physical
knowledge and development, considering the students’ health, aesthetics and
welfare, then why not associate it with content from artistic disciplines that use the
body as an expression, such as dance or theatre? The possibility of expressing
oneself, which is a characteristic of art, enables identification with the other through
mimesis. It would thus be possible to identify with the weakest through one’s own
weakness and therefore elicit an understanding that each individual, in his or her
1
Note that the correlations obtained in this study indicate trends and the most frequent direction of
the relationship between variables examined but do not imply unequivocal significances. In the
case in question, not every student with good performance in physical education attacks classmates
who have poor performance in this and other subjects.
4 Proposals for Addressing School Violence 69
own way, represents the universality of possibilities for all individuals, thus pro-
moting identification and combating violence. In some ways, this proposition is
already reflected in a sport: rhythmic gymnastics, which, among other sports, is
close to art. Indeed, because there are a number of sports that are close to art, this
aesthetic aspect should also be emphasised: a beautiful play in football, a beautiful
attack in volleyball, or a nice movement in capoeira. Thus, not only strength and
physical dexterity but also artistic expression and aesthetic movement are funda-
mental and would be emphasised.
The examination of school hierarchies in the study analysed in this book helps
further define the description made by Adorno (1995a): there are not only two
school hierarchies but at least four, i.e., those who are least often nominated as
being the best in academic subjects or physical education are not necessarily the
worst; those who are least often considered to be popular do not necessarily
coincide with those who are unpopular. In fact, important data regarding the
hierarchies of those considered to be the worst are obtained. The four hierarchies
detected by this study are as follows: 1—the official hierarchy of the best students in
academic subjects; 2—the official hierarchy of the worst students in academic
subjects; 3—the unofficial hierarchy of the best students in physical education and
the most popular students; and 4—the unofficial hierarchy of the worst students in
physical education and the most unpopular students. These data confirm the exis-
tence of an analytical perspective that can go beyond perceived performance and
infer the existence of school hierarchies, which is consistent with the existence of a
society that is also composed of hierarchies.
School evaluation instruments favour the establishment of these hierarchies, and
we are reminded by the study of Garandeau et al. (2013) that the existence of
hierarchies is not necessarily only linked to violence; recognising differences in
knowledge between the teacher and the student is important for the incorporation of
culture to occur in an appropriate manner. Even at a time such as the present, which
is characterised by an emphasis on learning for the sake of learning (Saviani 1999)
and the possibility of quickly obtaining information by using the internet, the
teacher’s knowledge and experience is critical for the objectivity of knowledge to
be expressed in the legitimacy of those who can deepen such knowledge (Arendt
1978). The need for there to be confidence in the teacher for culture to be incor-
porated cannot be overlooked.
Grounded in psychoanalysis, Adorno (1995a) argues that the constitution of the
ego occurs through an identification with and subsequent overcoming of authority:
if there is no identification with the authority, then the self is not constituted; if there
is an identification but not an overcoming of what was incorporated from the
authority—made possible through experience—then there is no autonomy. If
authoritarianism must be criticised for its arbitrariness and violence, knowledge as a
mark of tradition must rely on authorities who can transmit it. These authorities
must not be reduced to machines or objective methods that facilitate learning; for
them to be objective, they must be expressed by the subject, i.e., by an individual
who can reflect on what he or she has learned. This is the knowledge that can
counteract violence rather than the knowledge focused only on practice, which we
certainly also need. Thus, as argued in the first chapter of this book, the official
hierarchy may also be important to allow those who know more to assist those who
have more difficulties, which is something that is confirmed in the proposals of
inclusive education (Pacheco et al. 2007). Moreover, according to the results
obtained in this study, the students who are at the top of this hierarchy may not be
aggressive, may not develop prejudices and may be respected by their classmates
because they are not prominently associated with being either the perpetrator or
target of aggression. The unofficial hierarchy can also be important insofar as it
provides models for health and beauty, which may continue to exist among other
possible models.
However, when an organisation’s hierarchy becomes a means to an end, the
organisation is no longer conducive to human development and may act in ways
that lead individuals to regress psychically or—at best—not progress. When
competition is provoked, the experience enabled by identification with the other
becomes confused with the possibility of one day defeating it rather than with the
possibility of peaceful coexistence, which complicates the isolation of those who
intend to surpass their colleagues; with competition, they begin to admire strength
and the skill to excel over others. Freud (1993) analysis regarding the constitution
of groups and the formation of the ego indicates how weak the consciousness is:
when a leader takes his place and the identification with this leader—which then
extends to other people who also identify with this leadership—hides the panic that
begins to manifest when the leader is called into question, the individual does not
know how to orient him/herself in the absence of that leader. In other words, when a
group, a mass or a society is constituted by different individuals, who think for
themselves—because they can incorporate the authority and overcome it, i.e., they
are autonomous—these groupings are solid and rational. When, instead, there is a
need for leaders, or even ideologies, to guide individual action, these groups are
precarious and unstable and require forces that fall short of reason to be maintained.
In other words, a democratic, emancipated society cannot exist without individuals
who are well-formed and thus favourable to experience (Adorno 1995a). The
competition present in hierarchies hinders the formation of collectives, except for,
as illustrated by Freud (1986), through his concept of the ‘narcissism of small
differences’, i.e., when there are other collectives they can position themselves
against, which become a common target that unites different individuals to antag-
onise them. Adorno (1995a) is also opposed to education through competition,
which implies ‘elbowing your way’ past others.
The illusion of the winner’s victory, the feeling that one is superior to those they
have defeated—this narcissistic impulse—assumes domination over the defeated.
Additionally, in this case, the domination-submission relationship encourages the
need for strength, whether it is physical or intellectual, to be maintained, which
implies that developing only the spirit is not sufficient for overcoming this incli-
nation for domination (Adorno 2004); it is also important to reflect on this ten-
dency. Naturally, hierarchies established as a means of transmitting knowledge
should also anticipate submission to those who have it, but it is a submission to be
overcome by the acquisition of this knowledge, and it is a submission that should
not involve domination because it exists to cease to exist rather than to perpetuate.
It is a submission for freedom, and therefore, the school authority does not dom-
inate but can be respected, not because of fear but because of what it makes
possible: a life with autonomy by those who have learned what is necessary to
choose a dignified life.
Studies on bullying generally examine school performance, physical attrac-
tiveness and student popularity, which are important variables. By themselves,
however, they tend to result in psychological or familial explanations, which are
centred on the individual and his or her life. Using the concept of a structure, school
and its relationship with a hierarchical society can be conceived as being conducive
to these forms of violence. School is structured by hierarchies, even among the
students, and it is possible to think about school violence through them. This
hypothesis can be reconciled with the hypothesis that supports the opposite
movement, which assumes that it is the search for popularity and inclusion in
groups that determines violence—such as bullying—and hence the constitution of
the hierarchy. In this sense, the school encourages students’ being placed into its
hierarchical structure through competition among peers simultaneously as the stu-
dents, who are affected by social hierarchies, attempt to overcome their opponents,
thereby strengthening school hierarchies. If this is the case, then it is the school’s
responsibility to reflect on how these hierarchies could promote the constitution of
individuals formed for critique and freedom and how hierarchies based on physical
strength or cleverness—or even the defence of knowledge that is power over others
—may be contributing to a false formation.
In terms of the results obtained regarding student autonomy, when they are
confirmed by other studies, it will be necessary to think about why most of the 14-
and 15-year-old students—now at the end of middle school—have not developed a
satisfactory autonomy from the school authority. One of the main factors may be
the insistence on obedience to the rules, without their rationale’s being discussed
and incorporated by the students (Roth et al. 2010). This insistence may be due to
the weakening of the authority (Horkheimer and Adorno 1973), which no longer
feels able to discuss these rules with students and which, in turn, does not contribute
to the development of their autonomy. Students who are targets of bullying tend to
agree more with the need for punishment and obedience to authorities than their
classmates, which may mean that they do not know how to defend themselves or
that they believe that they should not be aggressive but rather should wait for their
teachers to act against the violence.
The most common feelings that the students attribute to targets of bullying are
hatred and resentment, which may lead to the assumption that they want teachers to
punish the students who do not follow the rules, which they themselves defend and
follow. Some researchers (Pinheiros and William 2009) associated the desire for
revenge with mass killings at US schools and universities: these killings are rep-
risals for being bullied. The fact that they have the highest scores on the F-scale
strengthens the assumption that those who follow the rules without necessarily
thinking about their rationale are inflexible. As indicated in the previous chapter,
these students may have exacerbated their sadomasochistic characteristics.
According to Adorno (1995a), those who make sacrifices for the rules should
require others to do the same, and if they are a target of aggression—which means
the rules have been broken—then they may demand strict justice from the authority;
when this is not possible, they may take ‘justice into their own hands’. The defence
of what is designated ‘politically correct’ may have part of its psychological
explanation here (without denying the importance of opposing violence): the crit-
icism concerns the manner in which they sometimes appear to be like those whom
they want to criticise. However, it is understandable that the perpetrators of bullying
are those who least agree with the need to strictly follow rules and the need for
punishment. Naturally, this does not make them more autonomous, given that the
aggression that they practice is irrational.
Students who are targets and perpetrators of aggression appear to be sensitive to
violence because they show less agreement with the statements in the ‘obedience
and punishment’ factor and the statements on the F-scale, leading to the assumption
that their aggression is a form of defence rather than being spontaneous. If they
react inappropriately, they should not be considered perpetrators of aggression.
Having the worst performance in academic subjects is related to prejudice
against students who are considered to be weak: students with disabilities, autism
and effeminate or masculine gender presentations. Because these students can be
considered weak from the perspective of their potential for learning, one may think
that students who appear weaker than them are targets of prejudice. If this form of
violence can be explained by the prejudiced person’s projecting his or her own
characteristics onto the target, then these students would project their own weakness
onto those whom they consider to be weaker than them. However, the more the
students are considered to be perpetrators of aggression, the less they tend to
express prejudice against students who are considered aggressive or bad students,
i.e., in this case, it seems that they identify with them, which strengthens the
hypothesis that prejudice expresses more developed needs and characteristics than
the mere desire for subjugation present in bullying.
According to the results obtained in the study described here, good performance
in academic subjects tends to be a way for the student to oppose prejudice, which
indicates the importance of the school’s fulfilling its main objective: to transmit
knowledge and develop autonomy. Considering that those nominated as being
perpetrators of aggression are among the worst students in academic subjects, if
they learn the school subjects well, perhaps they would not be aggressors or be
prejudiced. Because students who are perceived to be at the top of the unofficial
hierarchy are inclined to be prejudiced against students with a different skin colour
or an effeminate or masculine gender presentation, this strengthens the need for the
material that is taught in physical education that predominantly focuses on physical
performance and victory in sports to be reconsidered and for school formation to
oppose the development of prejudice. If the weakness perceived in some students
makes them victims of bullying and prejudice, then inclusive education, which
proposes the coexistence of everyone—the strongest and the weakest—can con-
tribute to overcoming this division.
Thus, the main proposals to be made based on the results obtained in this study
are as follows:
(a) Reflecting on the material and practices developed in physical education to
make it an education for physical sensitivity rather than only physical strength;
(b) Stressing the importance of learning the curriculum content and the skills to be
developed because they allow the student to not only not engage with the
existing school violence but also to not have prejudices. This should be directed
towards all students, particularly those who, for different reasons, have diffi-
culties learning and developing, for them to stop seeking to stand out through
violence;
(c) Reflecting on the school’s rules because, if they are not just, rational and
incorporated in a thoughtful manner, they may contribute to a rigid personality
formation;
(d) Defending the school hierarchy when it serves as a means for the school to
achieve its objectives; criticising it when it becomes ‘an end in itself’; and
(e) The different types of inclusive education that have been proposed, by
defending coexistence among students with different skills and abilities and not
being based on the homogeneity of students, may be an antidote to school
violence.
These proposals aim to not only eliminate, or at least mitigate, school violence—
which is no less important—but also act in an attempt to make society less violent.
Eliminating or substantially reducing the existence of violence in our society would
require society to structurally change for it to be just and to allow a dignified and
free life. Although school, on its own, cannot effect this change, it can contribute to
it by reflecting on and acting against the extramural violence that affects it, which it
reproduces through its specific mechanisms.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1995a). Educação e emancipação [Education and Emancipation]. (W. L. Maar,

Adorno, T. W. (2004). Teoría de la pseudocultura [Theory of pseudo-culture]. In: T. W. Adorno
(Ed.), Escritos Sociológicos I, obra completa [Adorno’s Sociological Writings I, the complete
works] (Vol. 8, pp. 39–78). (A. G. Ruiz, Trans.). Madri: Edicciones Akal.
Antunes, D. C. and Zuin, A. A. S. (2008) Do bullying ao preconceito: Os desafios da barbárie à
Psicologia & Sociedade, 20(1). Jan.
Arendt, H. (1978). Entre o passado e o futuro [Between Past and Future]. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Crochík, J. L. (2003). Atitudes a respeito da educação inclusiva [Attitudes towards inclusive
education]. Movimento (Niterói), 1, 19–38.
Freud, S. (1986). El malestar en la cultura. In N. A. Braustein (Org.), A medio siglo de El malestar en
la cultura de Sigmund Freud. (J. L. Etcheverry, Trans.). México, Siglo Veintiuno. (pp. 22–116).
Freud, S. (1993). Psicologia de las masas y análisis del yo. In S Freud, Obras completas,
reimpressão. (J. L. Etcheverry, Trans.). Argentina: Amorrortu ed. (Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 63–136).
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T.W. (1973). Temas básicos de sociologia [Basic topics in
sociology]. São Paulo: Editora Cultrix.
Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (1985). Dialética do Esclarecimento [Dialectic of
Enlightenment]. (G. A. de Almeida, Trans.). Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor.
Pacheco, J., Eggertsdóttir, R., & Marinósson, G. L. (2007). Caminhos para a inclusão [Paths
towards inclusion]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Pinheiro, F. M. F.; Willians, L. C. de A. (2009). Violência intrafamiliar e intimidação entre colegas
no ensino fundamental [Family violence and bullying among classmates in primary school].
Cadernos de pesquisa (Vol. 39, no. 138), São Paulo.
Saviani, D. (1999). Escola e Democracia [School and Democracy]. Campinas: Autores
Associados.
Appendix
Research Instrument
Personal Data Questionnaire

1. Name:
_______________________________________________________________
2. School:
_______________________________________________________________
3. Grade: ________
4. Age: _______ years old
5. Sex: ( ) Female ( ) Male
6. Do you practice a religion? ( ) No ( ) Yes Which religion?:
_______________________
7. How long have you attended this school? _______ years
8. Mark the table below for how many of each item are in your home:
Items Number of items

Colour television 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Radio 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Bathroom 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Automobile 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Housemaid 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Washing machine 0 1 2 3 4 or more
VHS or DVD player 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Refrigerator 0 1 2 3 4 or more
Freezer (independent unit or part of the refrigerator) 0 1 2 3 4 or more

SpringerBriefs in School Psychology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52404-7
76 Appendix: Research Instrument
9. Mark the education level of the head of your family in the second column:
Illiterate/completed fourth grade

Completed fifth grade
Completed primary school
Completed secondary school
Completed higher education
Scale 1
Instructions: Use an ‘X’ to mark how much you agree with each statement. The
number 1 means complete disagreement, and the number 6 means complete
agreement; the other values imply a greater or lesser degree of agreement; the
higher the number, the greater the agreement.
Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Agree
1. Someday it will be proven that Disagree Agree
astrology can explain many things
2. Obedience and respect for authority Disagree Agree
are the main virtues that we must
teach our children
3. An individual with bad manners, Disagree Agree
bad habits and a bad upbringing
cannot become friends with decent
people
4. What this country needs, rather than Disagree Agree
more laws and policy plans, is
courageous and tireless leaders
5. The worst people are those who do Disagree Agree
not feel deep love, gratitude and
respect for their parents
6. People can be divided into two Disagree Agree
defined classes: the weak and the
strong
7. Only through suffering can you Disagree Agree
learn the truly important things
8. Science is important, but there are Disagree Agree
many things that human beings will
never be able to understand
9. Young people have rebellious ideas Disagree Agree
that they will give up over time
10. If we talked less and worked more, Disagree Agree
then we would all be better off
11. We should all have faith in a Disagree Agree
supernatural power, whose decisions
we must accept
(continued)
Appendix: Research Instrument 77
(continued)
12. Homosexuals are basically Disagree Agree
criminals and should be punished
13. No decent and healthy person Disagree Agree
would think about offending a close
friend or relative
14. Leisure can only occur after your Disagree Agree
duties are done
15. At present, people increasingly Disagree Agree
invade the lives of others
16. Only prison is a sufficient Disagree Agree
punishment for sexual crimes such as
rape and attacks on children
17. Any insult to our honour must be Disagree Agree
punished
18. Most of our social problems Disagree Agree
would be solved if we could eliminate
immoral people, marginalised people
and people with intellectual
disabilities
19. We should not worry about Disagree Agree
problems but rather focus on more
pleasant things
20. The excessive sexual freedom of Disagree Agree
the ancient Greeks and Romans was
nothing compared to what it is like in
Brazil today
21. Most people do not realise just Disagree Agree
how much of life is guided by
conspiracies forged in secret places
22. At present, with so many different Disagree Agree
people walking around and interacting
with each other, everyone should take
special care to protect themselves
against the spread of infections and
illnesses
23. Because it is human nature, there Disagree Agree
will always be wars and conflicts
24. Some people are born with the Disagree Agree
need to jump from high places
25. Nothing can stop us when we have Disagree Agree
willpower
26. What our young people need is Disagree Agree
discipline, determination and a
willingness to work and sacrifice for
our country
(continued)
(continued)
27. Wars and social conflicts may end Disagree Agree
some day because of an earthquake or
flood that will destroy the entire world
28. I do not need to be told what to do Disagree Agree
29. Everyone is equal, and there is no Disagree Agree
need for authority
30. Teachers should let students solve Disagree Agree
their disagreements on their own
31. If a student does not know what he Disagree Agree
or she did wrong, then he or she
should not be punished
32. The teacher should always be Disagree Agree
obeyed
33. Any infraction of the rules must be Disagree Agree
punished
34. Disobeying the teacher should be Disagree Agree
punished
35. Receiving a good evaluation from Disagree Agree
the teacher is more important than
learning
36. Teachers should always be Disagree Agree
respected
37. The teacher should not punish an Disagree Agree
undisciplined student
Scale 2
Instructions: The questions below refer to your classmates. Write the FIRST
NAMES, and NOT THE LAST NAMES, of your classmates who correspond
to what is asked. You can repeat the name of the same student in more than
one space, as necessary. When two or more of your classmates have the same
first name, please also indicate their last name. You are allowed to write your
own name.
The questions are the following:
1. Nominate up to three students in your class who are the:
Best in academic subjects Best in physical education Most popular

2. Nominate up to three students in your class who are the:
Worst in academic Worst in physical

subjects education Least popular
Scale 3
1. This quarter, with regard to your classmates, you: (mark one alternative per row)
No 1–2 times 1–3 times 1–4 times Every

per quarter per month per week day
Called names?
Threatened to hit?
Hit?
Spread rumours?
Excluded/Rejected?
Gave offensive nicknames?
Ruined their things or
clothing?
Took their things or money
without permission?
Caressed them without their
permission?
Another situation? Which
one?
2. If you did at least one of the actions in the table above, you:
(a) did it in a group or with classmates who are weaker than you? ( ) Yes ( ) No
(b) continue practicing these actions with the same classmates? ( ) Yes ( ) No
3. If you have practiced one of the actions above, how did you feel (you can
mark more than one alternative):
Popular ( ) Better than others ( )

Happy () Like a winner ( )
Hated () Not like a loser ( )
Cowardly () Other ( ) How?_______________
Brave ( )
4. In your opinion, what led these students to practice these acts? (you can mark
more than one option)
( ) a lack of affection/insecurity
( ) they do not socialise/have no friends
( ) they do not receive attention at home
( ) they are often beaten at home
( ) they consider themselves to be different from others
( ) others do not defend themselves
( ) they are retaliating against the aggression that they experience
( ) they are prejudiced
( ) they have no limits
( ) they have nothing to do
( ) a lack of respect
( ) other What? ______________________
5. Use an ‘X’ to mark the characteristics of the students who practice these acts
(perpetrators) and the students who experience them (victims) (you can
leave the spaces blank when the characteristics are not perceived as belonging to
either the perpetrators/bullies or the victims):
Characteristics Perpet Victi

Fat () ()
Other Characteristics of the Perpetrators?
Thin () ()
Strong () () ____________________________________________
Weak () () ____________________________________________
Wears glasses () () ____________________________________________
Good grades () ()
Poor grades () ()
Good at sports () ()
Other Characteristics of the Victims?
Bad at sports () ()
Popular () () ____________________________________________
Unpopular () () ____________________________________________
Effeminate/Masc () () ____________________________________________
Disabilities () ()
Black () ()
6. During this quarter: (mark one alternative per line)
No 1–2 times 1–3 times 1–4 times Every

per quarter per month per week day
They called your name?
They threatened to hit you?
They hit you?
They spread rumours about
you?
They excluded or rejected you?
They gave you offensive
nicknames?
They ruined your things or
clothing?
They took your things or
money without your
permission?
They caressed you without your
permission?
Another situation? Which one?
7. If you have suffered at least one of the actions in the table above:
(a) it occurred in a group or with classmates who are stronger than you?
( ) Yes ( ) No
(b) these classmates continue practicing these actions with you? ( ) Yes ( ) No
8. When you experienced one of the actions above, you felt (you can mark more
than one alternative):
Like a loser ( ) Disregarded/Insignificant ( )

Fear ( ) Sadness ( )
Worse than the others ( ) Hate ( )
Powerless ( ) Desire for revenge ( )
Inferiority ( ) Other ( ) What?
____________________________
- Remembering that your answers will not be shown to anyone but the
researchers, indicate which students in
your class: Experience these acts
Practice these acts
Scale 4
Instructions: Mark one of the alternatives for each row of the tables below:
1. Would you talk during recess with a student who:
No Yes
Has a disability
Is autistic/has difficulty interacting
Has aggressive behaviour
Has a different skin colour than you
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student
2. Would you do classwork with a student who:
No Yes
Has a disability
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student
3. Would you invite a student back to your home who:
No Yes
Has a disability
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student
4. Would you help with the learning difficulties of a student who:
No Yes
Has a disability
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student
5. Would you be friends with a student who:
No Yes
Has a disability
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student
6. Do you think students with the characteristics below can make friends?
No Yes
Has a disability
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student
7. Do you think that students with the following characteristics learn what is
taught?
No Yes
Has a disability
Is effeminate
Is masculine girl
Is unpopular
Is a bad student

Bullying, Prejudice and School Performance A New Approach: José Leon Crochick Nicole Crochick

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bullying, Prejudice and School Performance A New Approach: José Leon Crochick Nicole Crochick

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN PSYCHOLOGY

ISSN 2192-8363 ISSN 2192-8371 (electronic)

© The Author(s) 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

São Paulo, Brazil José Leon Crochick

1 Two Forms of School Violence: Bullying and Prejudice . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.2.1 Relationships Between Bullying and Adherence

1.1 Social and Psychological Factors of Violence

Violence is a longstanding concern and inherent to a conflictive and contradictory

© The Author(s) 2017 1

1.2 School Hierarchies and the Reproduction of Social

As Garandeau et al. (2013) demonstrates, there is little research on the rela-

1.3 Bullying, Performance and Popularity

Competition in both hierarchies appears to be guided by the valorisation of those

1.4 Prejudice, Bullying and Authoritarian Personality

1.5 Bullying, Authority and Autonomy

autonomy in Kantian terms, deﬁning the possibility of reflection and a

Epistemologically, idealism can be deﬁned as a way of thinking that emphasises

which—unlike in the past—is no longer primarily based on strength, at least as a

1.6 Inclusive Education and the Fight Against School

The objectives of this research are as follows:

© The Author(s) 2017 31

Institutos de Mercado—ABA-ABIPEME), is 22.6 points (SD = 5.8 points), placing

Autonomy from Authority

– Students who followed no religion expressed more prejudice against weak

2.2.3 Data Collection Procedures

Adorno, T. W. (1995a). Educação e Emancipação [Education and Emancipation]. (W. L. Maar,

3.1 Relationships Among Perceived School Performance,

3.1.1 School Performance and Violence—Self-evaluation

© The Author(s) 2017 45

Because this involves self-evaluation, the perception of having been attacked

3.1.2 School Performance and Violence—Peer Evaluation

Table 3.2 Partial Perpetrator Victim

3.1.3 School Performance and Bullying

3.1.4 School Performance and Prejudice

3.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice

3.2.1 Relationships Between Bullying and Adherence

3.2.2 Relationships Between Bullying and Autonomy

to Bleichmar (2008), singlehandedly contributes to a state of social confusion. Roth

3.2.3 Relationships Between Bullying and Prejudice

3.3 Characteristics of the Perpetrators and Victims

Table 3.14 Frequency and Frequency Percentage

Table 3.15 Frequency and Feeling Frequency Percentage

3.4 Hierarchies, Prejudice and School Violence Against

colour, or an effeminate or masculine gender presentation. Table 3.18 shows the

Adorno, T. W. (1995). Educação e Emancipação [Education and emancipation] (W. L. Maar,

Adorno, T. W. (1995a). Educação e emancipação [Education and Emancipation]. (W. L. Maar,

Personal Data Questionnaire

Items Number of items

© The Author(s) 2017 75

Illiterate/completed fourth grade

Best in academic subjects Best in physical education Most popular

2. Nominate up to three students in your class who are the:

Worst in academic Worst in physical

No 1–2 times 1–3 times 1–4 times Every

Popular ( ) Better than others ( )

Characteristics Perpet Victi

6. During this quarter: (mark one alternative per line)

No 1–2 times 1–3 times 1–4 times Every

Like a loser ( ) Disregarded/Insignificant ( )

2. Would you do classwork with a student who:

3. Would you invite a student back to your home who: