Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wamt20

Class teachers’ bullying-related self-

efficacy and their students’ bullying
victimization, bullying perpetration, and
combined victimization and perpetration

Saskia M. Fischer, Heather A. Woods & Ludwig Bilz

To cite this article: Saskia M. Fischer, Heather A. Woods & Ludwig Bilz (2021): Class
teachers’ bullying-related self-efficacy and their students’ bullying victimization, bullying perpetration,
and combined victimization and perpetration, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, DOI:
10.1080/10926771.2021.1933290
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.1933290

Published online: 09 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wamt20
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA
https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.1933290

Class teachers’ bullying-related self-efficacy and their

students’ bullying victimization, bullying perpetration,
and combined victimization and perpetration
a b a
Saskia M. Fischer , Heather A. Woods , and Ludwig Bilz
a
Department of Pedagogical Psychology, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-
Senftenberg, Faculty of Social Work, Health Care and Music, Institute of Health, Senftenberg,
Germany; bUniversity of Ottawa, Faculty of Education, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Teachers’ responses to incidents of bullying among students can Received 18 November
be important for bullying dynamics. Theoretical models of tea-chers’ 2020 Revised 10 February
intervention competence and the theory of planned beha-vior 2021 Accepted 11 May 2021
suggest that teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy may be KEYWORDS
associated with teachers’ responses to bullying and students’ Bullying; teacher; self-
bullying behavior and bullying victimization experiences. Several efficacy; victimization;
studies report an association between teachers’ self-efficacy and perpetration; bully-victim
their intervention behavior in incidents of bullying. However, the
possible association with student bullying perpetration has rarely
been examined so far. The current study explores the association
between class teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying victi-
mization, perpetration, and combined bully-victim behavior in a
sample of 2,071 students and their 93 class teachers in Germany.
The results suggest an association between class tea-chers’ self-
efficacy and students’ perpetration behavior. The higher teachers’
bullying intervention self-efficacy, the fewer stu-dents seem to bully
other students. In contrast, teachers’ self-efficacy was not
associated with students’ victimization experiences and students’
bully-victim behavior. Possible under-lying mechanisms, as well as
limitations of the present results, are discussed. Further research is
needed to substantiate the findings.

Introduction
Bullying is defined as an aggressive and negative social behavior that is repeated,
intended to harm the victimized student, and marked by an imbalance of power
between the students involved (Olweus, 2010). Several meta-analyses have found
bullying victimization associated with increased risks of psychosomatic problems and
mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and
decreased academic achievement (Gini & Pozzoli, 2013; Heerde
& Hemphill, 2019; Moore et al., 2017). Those who bully may also experience health
problems. Even when the negative consequences are less severe and less

CONTACT Saskia M. Fischer saskia.fischer@b-tu.de Brandenburg University of Technology,

Faculty of Social Work, Health Care and Music, Institute of Health, Department of Pedagogical
Psychology, Universitätsplatz 1, 01968 Senftenberg, Germany
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
2 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

well studied, longitudinal studies indicate that students who bully others are
also at higher risk for suicidal ideations, antisocial personality disorder, and
func-tional impairment (Evans et al., 2018; Pontillo et al., 2019).
International prevalence rates vary up to 35%, with prevalence rates for
bullying perpetration (35%) and bullying victimization (36%) being very similar
(Modecki et al., 2014). Next to bullying perpetration behavior and bullying
victimization experiences (students who are bullied), students can be both bullied
and bully others (bully-victims). Bully-victims are the rarest group among
individuals who engage in bullying behavior. Though not explicitly analyzed in
many studies, under 10% prevalence rates can be expected (Lereya et al.,
2015). However, bully-victims are particularly affected by the negative
consequences of bullying and are especially hard to address by bullying inter-
ventions (Sung et al., 2020). In Germany, where the current study was con-
ducted, researchers have found roughly 13% of learners experience bullying,
with 8% being bullied, 4% bullying others, and about 1% being bully-victims
(Fischer, John, Melzer et al., 2020b). Studies usually find that male students bully
others more often than female students. However, gender differences for victi-
mization are less clear (Smith et al., 2019). Consistent with these international
findings, about 6% of boys and less than 2% of girls in Germany reported
bullying others, and 1.5% of boys and less than 1% of girls identified themselves
as bully-victims (Fischer, John, Melzer et al., 2020b). However, both 8% to 9% of
girls and boys reported being victimized in bullying situations. The type of school
students attend and their grade level can be risk factors for bullying. Bullying and
victimization rates are higher in schools for special education and grades six to
eight and are lowest in schools that prepare for university studies (Fischer, John,
Melzer et al., 2020b; Margraf & Pinquart, 2016).
The social-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) can be applied to bully-
ing dynamics (Hong & Espelage, 2012; Zych et al., 2019). Bullying is a social
phenomenon that does not only exist between two individual students but arises
in a complex social system (Hong & Espelage, 2012). Teachers are an essential
part of this social system. Their attitudes toward bullying and their intervention
behavior can influence students’ behavior (Longobardi et al., 2020; Yoon &
Bauman, 2014). Following socialization models, teachers act as socializing
agents for students by communicating values and behaviors that are socially
accepted (Bierman, 2011; Farmer et al., 2011; Yoon & Barton, 2008). These
values, behaviors, and beliefs are modeled through daily interaction between
teachers and students. Students learn that bullying is not acceptable when the
teachers model non-aggressive and respectful behavior and react promptly and
self-confidently to bullying situations. However, about 15% of students report that
teachers did not intervene in bullying situations (Wachs et al., 2019).
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 3

Teachers’ bullying intervention competence

Myriad factors determine if teachers intervene in incidents of bullying or not.
Several studies have investigated gender and work experience as relevant
teacher characteristics for bullying intervention (Gregus et al., 2017; Khoury-
Kassabri, 2011; Oldenburg et al., 2015). Bilz et al. (2015) presented a model of
conditions and consequences of teachers’ bullying interventions. The authors
aimed to systematize which factors may influence teachers’ responses to bullying
and which factors may be influenced by these responses. The pre-sented model
is based on the model of teachers’ professional competence by Baumert and
Kunter (2013) and focuses on teachers’ intervention competence, which
comprises knowledge, beliefs, self-regulation, and motivation. The model states
that intervention competence is both influenced by and influ-ences bullying
intervention. Bullying interventions, again, influence the con-sequences of
bullying, such as students’ experiences with bullying.
One of the most often studied part of teachers’ intervention competence is
self-efficacy. Following Bandura’s social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is
defined as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated
levels of performance” (Bandura, 1994, p. 71). Several studies found self-
efficacy associated with teachers’ bullying intervention (Fischer et al., 2020a).
Additionally, the role of self-efficacy is also stressed in the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The theory suggests that intention and behavioral
control, which is compatible with Bandura’s (1994) concept of self-efficacy
(Ajzen, 1991) – predict actual human behavior and behavioral achievement.
The model presented by Bilz et al. (2015) suggests an indirect effect between
teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying experiences via teachers’ intervention
behavior in bullying situations. Several studies support the connection between
teachers’ self-efficacy and their likelihood of intervention (Fischer et al., 2020a).
However, a direct association between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bully-ing
experiences can be expected, as well. Following the model of conditions and
consequences of teachers’ bullying interventions, students’ bullying experiences can
be seen as a consequence of intervention behavior, which can be linked directly to
the conditions of behavior, such as teachers’ self-efficacy. Secondly, the theory of
planned behavior suggests that self-efficacy is associated with behavioral
achievement. Because of the vital role teachers can have in bullying, reduced
students’ bullying experiences can be an achievement of teachers’ intervention
behavior. Thirdly, teachers socialize students by modeling accepted behavior and
intervening in unaccepted behavior. It can be expected that teachers with higher self-
efficacy beliefs perform intervention behavior more self-confidently and, by that, form
their students’ internalized values and, in turn, their students’ behavior more strongly.
Therefore, the self-efficacy of teachers may be associated with fewer bullying
experiences of their students.
4 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

The association between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’

bullying experiences
To our knowledge, four studies have investigated the association
between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying experiences so
far (Gregus et al., 2017; Khoury-Kassabri, 2011; De Luca et al., 2019;
Oldenburg et al., 2015). However, the association with students’
bullying perpetration behavior, spe-cifically, has only been investigated
in one previous study (De Luca et al., 2019).
In two studies, one based on data of 3,375 students and their 120 class
teachers in Israel and another based on data from 1,056 students and 120
teachers in Italy, results revealed that teachers’ self-efficacy was not associated
with students’ bullying victimization (Khoury-Kassabri, 2011; De Luca et al.,
2019) or bullying perpetration (De Luca et al., 2019). In another study, based on
3,385 students and 139 teachers in the Netherlands, results suggested that
students in classrooms where the teacher is more confident in handling bullying
may experience more victimization (Oldenburg et al., 2015). The positive
association between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying vic-timization
was contrary to the authors’ prediction. The authors explained their results by
suggesting that teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs may over-estimate their
abilities to handle bullying and underestimate the complexity of bullying
(Oldenburg et al., 2015). Another explanation presented is students may feel free
to report their victimization experiences when their teachers are more confident
to handle bullying (Oldenburg et al., 2015). In a fourth study, based on data of
654 students and 34 teachers in the United States, results suggested that
teachers’ self-efficacy was negatively associated with students’ self-reported
bullying victimization (Gregus et al., 2017).
In summary, the results concerning the relationship between teachers’
self-efficacy and students’ victimization experiences are mixed. As sample
sizes and statistical analyses are similar in most of these studies, we propose
that possible reasons for these heterogeneous findings may be due to
different operationa-lizations of self-efficacy. Based on the existing research,
conclusions about the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and
students’ bullying victimiza-tion cannot be confidently made. Further, findings
on the association between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying
perpetration are scarce and even missing on combined victimization and
perpetration. If we expect teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs to be reflected in
students’ bullying behavior, we should analyze bullying victimization and
bullying perpetration and combined victi-mization and perpetration.
The current study explores how class teachers’ self-reported bullying
intervention self-efficacy is related to their students ’ reported victimization
experiences, perpetration behavior, and combined bullying victimization and bullying
perpetration. The hypotheses are built on the assumptions
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 5

derived from the model of conditions and consequences of teachers’

bullying interventions (Bilz et al., 2015), the theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen, 1991), and the assumptions of teachers as socialization agents
for students (Bierman, 2011; Farmer et al., 2011; Longobardi et al.,
2020; Yoon & Barton, 2008).
It is expected that teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs support
students’ values to respect human diversity and socially accepted behavior.
Following this, fewer bullying experiences of students are seen as outcomes
and achieve-ments of teachers’ higher self-efficacy beliefs. We believe that
this is reflected in fewer students bullying others and, by that, also fewer
students being bullied. We assume that teachers’ self-confident behavior,
which is supported by high self-efficacy beliefs, is also reflected in fewer
students being bully-victims. Therefore, it is expected that students whose
class teachers report higher levels of bullying intervention self-efficacy report
(a) less bullying victimization and (b) less perpetration behavior and (c) less
combined victi-mization and perpetration.

Method
Sample
Both student and teacher data were collected in a stratified random school
sample (strata: school type) from 24 schools in a federal state in east
Germany. Three relevant German school types were included that represent
the educa-tional system of the federal state: grammar schools (Gymnasium,
n = 7), in which students are taught from classes five to twelve and prepared
for uni-versity study; high schools (Oberschule, n = 13), in which students are
taught from classes five to ten and mainly prepared for vocational school;
and schools for special education (Förderschule, n = 4), in which students
with special educational needs are taught. The participating schools were
chosen randomly from all schools in the federal state.
Based on power analysis, 1,596 students and 89 classes from 23 schools
were desired for the sample (assumptions: small correlational effect size of 0.1,
alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, design factor for three-level data = 2.04 based on
small ICC of 0.01 at class and school level; ICC based on Bilz, 2008; calcula-
tions based on Faul et al., 2007; Teerenstra et al., 2008). To collect data that are
robust against possible school failures, it was decided to collect data from 24
schools. Forty-one schools were contacted in total (response rate at school level
60%) to reach a sample of 24 schools. Probability-proportional-to-size sampling
(PPS) was used so that every student had equal chances of selection
independently from the size of the school that the student attended.
The whole sample included 2,071 students (48.7% female) with a mean age of
x = 13.64 years (SD = 1.17). Male and female students did not differ in age (t
6 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

(2062) = −0.40, p = .692; n = 5 missing). Participating students were in

school years six (x = 12.68 years, SD = 0.77) and eight (x = 14.62 years,
SD = 0.91). Response rate at student level was 78%. Most students who
did not participate in the survey had no consent form from their parents
(72%) or were off sick at the day of data collection (19%).
Ninety-three (81.7% female) class teachers from participating students took
part in the survey. The class teachers had a mean age of x = 52.76 years (SD =
6.03) and a mean work experience of x = 28.65 years (SD = 7.67). Female and
male teachers did not vary systematically in age (t(88) = .124, p = .901; n = 3
missing data) or work experience (t(87) = −1.52, p = .133; n = 4 missing data).
The class teachers had been teaching the participating class for an average of
2.64 school years (SD = 1.3 years) with an average of 6.69 school hours per
week (SD = 4.60 hours). Response rate at class teacher level was 81%.

Procedure
The study’s methodology and ethics were approved by the data protection
officer and the federal state’s education authority where the participating
schools were located. Principals of the randomly chosen schools were
informed via mail, and follow-up telephone calls were made afterward. Most
principals discussed the possible participation in the study with the teachers
and parent representatives. Upon receiving consent from the principal, infor-
mation materials were sent to the schools and distributed to students in
participating classes. Only students who wished to participate and whose
parents had signed consent forms could participate in the study. Informed
consent was obtained. Data were collected between June and October 2014.
Students and teachers answered the questionnaires in approximately 45 min-
utes. Student data were collected during regular school hours on an
appointed day by the research team. Students were told that they could
refrain from participating at any point in time without any negative
consequences. The class teachers were asked to answer the questionnaire
simultaneously as the students in their classes. If this was not possible, class
teachers answered the questionnaire in advance. A specially developed
coding system linked student and class teacher data while guaranteeing
students and teachers’ anonymity at any point in time. Schools received
financial compensation if they reached approximately 70% of teacher
participation to increase teachers’ motivation to participate in the study.

Measures
Teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy. Teacher’s bullying intervention
self-efficacy was assessed by a five-item scale (first published in German by
Fischer et al., 2017). The items assess different aspects of teachers’ bullying
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 7

intervention self-efficacy, including awareness of bullying, stopping

bullying, and finding a solution in bullying situations. Answers were given
via a four-point Likert scale (1 = not at all correct, 2 = hardly correct, 3 =
rather correct, 4 = totally correct). Teachers’ bullying intervention self-
efficacy was repre-sented by the mean of the five items (scores between
1 and 4 possible). The bullying intervention self-efficacy scale was
completed by n = 82 teachers (listwise delete). Confirmatory Factor
Analysis confirmed good fit for a one-factor model (CFI = .98, SRMR
= .03; tau-congeneric measure allowing differing factor loadings). Internal
consistency of the factor was Raykov’s Rho = .84 (estimator of reliability
for congeneric measures; Raykov, 1997) with item correlations between r
= .18 and r = .70. Descriptive statistics and factor loadings for the
teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy scale can be found in Table 1.
Students’ bullying experiences. Bullying experiences of students
were assessed via self-report using the two global items of the Revised
Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996). Firstly, a short
and age-appropriate definition of bullying was provided to the students.
Secondly, students were asked how frequently they bullied others or were
bullied by others during the past month. Students could choose between
five answers indicating the frequency of their bullying experiences (1 = no
experiences with bullying, 2 = once or twice, 3 = two to three times per
month, 4 = once a week, 5 = more than once a week). Students were
classified as students with victimi-zation experiences or bullying
perpetration behavior when they indicated victimization experiences or
perpetration behavior two to three times per month or more (answers 3 to
5; Olweus, 2010). Students who reported both victimization experiences
and perpetration behavior two to three or more times per month were
classified as students who are both perpetrators and targets of bullying.
Control variables. As control variables, student’s gender as well as class
teacher’s gender (0 = male, 1 = female), grade (0 = year six, 1 = year eight),

Table 1. Items from the Teacher Bullying Intervention Self-Efficacy Scale (translated from
German by authors) Including Means, Standard Deviations, and Standardized Factor Loadings.
Standard Factor
Item Mean Deviation Loadings
1) I am sure that I have the ability to carefully observe my surroundings in order 3.02 0.51 .55
to identify bullying and violence in my class at an early stage.
2) I am confident in my ability to intervene in instances of bullying and violence 3.23 0.55 .73
between students.
3) I am confident that I can put an end to instances of bullying and violence 2.96 0.67 .87
between students.
4) When it comes to bullying and violence between students, I am able to find 3.00 0.66 .80
a solution.
5) When I witness an instance of bullying and violence between students, 3.07 0.53 .48
I know how to act.
Note: Given are the standardized factor loadings in the congeneric CFA (CFI = .98, SRMR = .03), n = 82. Possible
answers to all items: 1 = not at all correct, 2 = hardly correct, 3 = rather correct, 4 = totally correct.
8 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

school type (dummy coded, reference category: grammar school) and

class teachers’ work experience were used. Class teachers’ work
experience was dichotomized based on their median years of experience
(median = 29; 0 = work experience ≤ 29 years, 1 = work experience > 29
years). All control variables were assessed in self-reports.

Data analyses
Multilevel analyses were conducted to account for the dependence of teacher
and student data. Data analyses were performed using SPSS 22 (IBM, 2013)
and MPlus 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). Logistic multilevel regression
analyses with two levels (students, classes) were conducted to assess the
association between class teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy and
students’ bullying experiences. Students’ victimization experiences, perpetra-
tion behavior, and combined victimization and perpetration were dichoto-
mized. Teachers’ intervention self-efficacy was standardized using z-scores
at the class level and assessed as a continuous variable.

Results
Teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy
The mean score of teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy was x = 3.07 (SD =
0.44; Min = 2.00, Max = 4.00). Kurtosis of the score was −0.25 and skew was 0.25,
so the distribution of the score met the assumption of normality. Results showed no
differences regarding self-efficacy between female and male teachers (t
(79) = 0.06, p = .950, d = 0.14), between teachers with many years of experience
and teachers with fewer years of work experience (t(77) = −0.47, p = .637, d =
2
−0.11) or according to school type (F(2, 79) = 0.84, p = .437, η = .022).

Students’ Bullying Victimization, Perpetration Behavior, and

Combined Victimization and Perpetration
From all students who participated in the survey, 11.5% (n = 233) reported
experiences as victims of bullying, 9.6% (n = 193) reported bullying perpetra-tion
behavior, and 1.7% (n = 35) reported both victimization and perpetration
experiences. Bullying perpetration behavior was significantly higher for male
2
students (in comparison to female students; Χ (1) = 9.31, p = .002, V = .12) and
2
students in school year eight (in comparison to school year six; Χ (1) = 4.84, p
= .028, V = .05). Perpetration behavior and victimization experiences were lowest
for students at grammar school (in comparison to both high school and school for
2
special education; perpetration: Χ (2) = 25.55, p < .001, V = .11; victimization:
2
Χ (2) = 27.72, p < .001, V = .12). Students at schools for special
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 9

education reported more combined victimization and perpetration than

2
stu-dents at other school types (Χ (2) = 22.05, p < .001, V = .07). We
found no other significant group differences.

Association between class teachers’ self-efficacy and students’

bullying experiences
The association between class teachers’ data and students’ data was
possible for n = 81 class teachers and n = 1,514 students. For bullying
perpetration behavior, the variance at class level (level 2) was 0.11 resulting
in ICC = 0.03. For bullying victimization experiences, the variance at level 2
was 0.06 result-ing in ICC = 0.02. For combined bullying victimization and
bullying perpetra-tion, the variance at level 2 was 0.18 resulting in an ICC =
0.05 (for the formula, see Muthén & Muthén, 2011, p. 66). Based on the ICCs
in the study, a power of more than 80% could be reached with the student
sample (two-level data, design factor with ICC = 0.05 and 19 students per
class = 1.9; Teerenstra et al., 2008).
Multilevel logistic regression analyses were conducted. For better
interpret-ability, class teachers’ self-efficacy scores were standardized using
z-scores. The standardized values were included as variables at level 2.
Additionally, stu-dents’ gender was included at level 1, and class teachers’
work experience (dichotomized: below and above median), class teachers’
gender, school year, and school type were included as control variables at
level 2. Results for the victimization experiences, perpetration behavior, and
combined victimization and perpetration are presented in Table 2.
Results show that attending a school for special education (in comparison
to attending a grammar school) was the only variable associated with all
types of bullying experiences assessed. Students at schools for special
education have a more than 2.5 times higher risk of being bullied, 3.5 times
higher risk of bullying others, and more than seven times higher risk of being
both a perpetrator and a target of bullying than students at grammar schools.
Attending a high school (in comparison to attending a grammar school) was
also associated with bullying others. Students at high schools are almost two
times more at risk of bullying others than students at grammar schools.
Students’ gender was associated with students’ bullying perpetration only.
Female students have half the chance of bullying others than male students.
Class teachers’ self-efficacy was only associated with students’
bullying perpetration behavior. Every increase per one standard
deviation in class teachers’ self-efficacy lowered the risk of students’
bullying perpetration by 30%. Class teachers’ self-efficacy was not
significantly associated with students’ victimization experiences or
combined bullying victimization and perpetration.
10 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

Table 2. Results of the Logistic Regression Analyses for Students’ (a) Bullying
Victimization Experiences, (b) Bullying Perpetration Behavior, and (c) Combined
Bullying Victimization and Perpetration.
B Standard error (SE) p OR (95% CI)
2 2
(a) Bullying victimization (Model: BIC = 1050.89, R Level 1 < .01, R Level 2 > .99)
Level 1
Students’ gender – female −0.11 0.16 .470 0.90 (0.66, 1.22)
Level 2
Class teachers’ self-efficacy (z-score) −0.02 0.08 .848 0.98 (0.84, 1.15)
Class teachers’ gender – female 0.23 0.21 .277 1.26 (0.84, 1.90)
Class teachers’ work experience – high 0.08 0.17 .645 1.08 (0.78, 1.49)
Grade – year eight −0.25 0.17 .134 0.78 (0.57, 1.08)
School type
High school 0.45 0.18 .011 1.57 (1.11, 2.20)
School for special education 1.00 0.29 .001 2.72 (1.54, 4.81)
(b) Bullying perpetration behavior (Model: BIC = 902.22, R Level 1 = .02, R
2 2

Level 2 = .85) Level 1

Students’ gender – female −0.55 0.20 .007 0.58 (0.39, 0.86)
Level 2
Class teachers’ self-efficacy (z-score) −0.32 0.09 < .001 0.73 (0.61, 0.87)
Class teachers’ gender – female 0.13 0.24 .583 1.14 (0.72, 1.80)
Class teachers’ work experience – high −0.15 0.20 .447 0.86 (0.58, 1.27)
Grade – year eight 0.10 0.19 .584 1.11 (0.77, 1.58)
School type
High school 0.65 0.21 .002 1.92 (1.26, 2.92)
School for special education 1.25 0.33 < .001 3.49 (1.82, 6.69)
(c)Combined victimization and perpetration (Model: BIC = 295.01, R2 Level 1 = .05, R2
Level 2 > .99) Level 1
Students’ gender – female −0.84 0.57 .136 0.43 (0.14, 1.31)
Level 2
Class teachers’ self-efficacy (z-score) −0.40 0.28 .146 0.67 (0.39, 1.15)
Class teachers’ gender – female 0.90 0.74 .224 2.46 (0.58, 10.49)
Class teachers’ work experience – high 0.45 0.41 .269 1.57 (0.70, 3.49)
Grade – year eight −0.06 0.39 .880 0.94 (0.44, 2.01)
School type
High school 0.27 0.46 .565 1.31 (0.53, 3.25)
School for special education 1.98 0.56 < .001 7.24 (2.44, 21.54)
Note: Significant variables in the model (p < .05) are printed in bold. Dependent variable = (a) bullying
victimization experiences, (b) bullying perpetration behavior, or (c) combined bullying victimization and
bullying perpetration [0 = no experience with bullying in the particular role, 1 = experience with bullying in
the particular role]. Given are the unstandardized coefficients. Model fit information is given using BIC and
2
R without correction. Class teachers’ self-efficacy is standardized using z-scores. Gender: 0 = male, 1 =
female. Work experience: 0 = work experience ≤ median, 1 = work experience > median. Grade: 0 = year
six, 1 = year eight. School type: Dummy coded, reference category = grammar school.

To explore whether the results are robust against a possible bias of the
schools’ unique characteristics for special education, the analyses reported
above were repeated without the data from students and teachers at schools for
special education (results are not reported here and can be obtained from the
first author). The results reported above were robust against this exclusion.

Discussion
In the present article, the associations between class teachers’ bullying
intervention self-efficacy and their students’ bullying victimization
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 11

experiences, bullying perpetration behaviors, and combined bullying victi-

mization and perpetration were analyzed. Results showed a negative
associa-tion between class teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy
and their students’ bullying perpetration behavior. Chances for students
bullying others decrease by 30% with every increase of one standard
deviation in their class teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy.
However, class tea-chers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy had no
association with the stu-dents’ victimization experiences or the students’
combined victimization and perpetration in their classes.

Students’ Experiences as Perpetrators of Bullying and Possible

Underlying Pathways
The present results reveal a small but significant negative association between
teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy and students’ perpetration beha-vior.
As far as we know, there is only one other study that investigated this association
before and found teachers’ self-efficacy is not related to students’ bullying
perpetration (De Luca et al., 2019). A possible explanation may be the different
operationalizations of teachers’ self-efficacy. While De Luca et al. (2019)
assessed a general form of teacher self-efficacy, a more specific form of self-
efficacy related to bullying intervention was explored in the present study.
Researchers recommend measuring self-efficacy narrowly and related to spe-
cific tasks (Bandura, 1977). Several findings in the literature illustrate that the
associations in question can be found with specific self-efficacy measures but not
with general ones (De Luca et al., 2019). De Luca and colleagues also measured
teachers’ perceived competence in managing bullying behaviors (which is a
specific measure) and found a negative and indirect association to students’
bullying behavior via teachers’ interventions (De Luca et al., 2019). Therefore, De
Luca and colleagues’ measures may have made it challenging to explore a
possible effect of teachers’ beliefs concerning their capabilities.
Based on the current data, the underlying pathways of the association
between teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy and students’ bullying
perpetration behavior cannot be explained. Based on the model of conditions
and consequences of teachers’ bullying interventions (Bilz et al., 2015), tea-
chers’ self-efficacy as one part of teachers’ intervention competence is asso-
ciated with teachers’ actual interventions in incidents of bullying, which in
turn, influences students’ bullying behavior. Teachers’ bullying intervention
self-efficacy may be indirectly associated with students’ bullying behavior via
teachers’ interventions in bullying. This is in line with the results presented by
De Luca et al. (2019) regarding specific teachers’ perceived competence. In
addition to the reported direct association between teachers’ bullying inter-
vention self-efficacy and students’ experiences as perpetrators of bullying,
12 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

there may be a more substantial indirect effect. Future research

should explore this hypothesis.
The reported direct association in the present study may be explained by
the role that teachers have as socialization agents in creating class norms
(Bierman, 2011; Farmer et al., 2011; Longobardi et al., 2020; Yoon & Barton,
2008; Yoon & Bauman, 2014). In the German school system, class teachers
spend a lot of time with their students. Teachers are trusted adults to
students and other teachers regarding all problems within their class. When
these teachers can intervene confidently in incidents of bullying, they may be
able to create a class norm in which students internalize the belief that
bullying is not acceptable. Following this explanatory approach, two possible
explana-tions for the reported association between class teachers’ bullying
intervention self-efficacy and students’ perpetration arise.
The students may have internalized these norms to such an extent
that they have the feeling that bullying is wrong and, therefore, bully
others less often. To investigate this pathway, researchers should
assess students’ beliefs and understanding concerning bullying (e.g.,
social popularity of bullies, acceptability of bullying) in addition to class
teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying behavior. In multilevel
regression analyses, these beliefs can be modeled individually and
aggregated at the class level to represent class norms.
It is also possible that the class norms that teachers created may lead
students to know that bullying is wrong and, therefore, may report less of
their bullying actions. That means that a reporting effect results from the
internalized anti-bullying class norms and affects the empirical findings.
To assess this, researchers should explore students’ self-reports
concerning bully-ing perpetration combined with students’ peer reports
concerning their class-mates’ bullying perpetration behavior.
However, it should be noted that the association between class teachers’
bullying intervention self-efficacy and students’ bullying perpetration is small.
Both the model of conditions and consequences of teachers’ bullying
interventions (Bilz et al., 2015) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
stress the importance of teachers’ self-efficacy. They also present several other
aspects that influence peoples’ behavior and, respectively, teachers’ intervention
behavior and students’ experiences with bullying. The model of conditions and
consequences of teachers’ bullying interven-tions presents teacher
characteristics and beliefs such as empathy, perceived seriousness of bullying,
and knowledge about bullying as aspects of teachers’ intervention competence
next to self-efficacy. The theory of planned beha-vior postulates that behavior is
influenced by perceived behavioral control – which is similar to self-efficacy, and
intentions. When applied to teachers’ interventions, perceived seriousness and
empathy should be analyzed next to self-efficacy (Yoon & Bauman, 2014). The
reported association between
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 13

teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy and students’ experiences

of bullying perpetration should only be seen as one single finding in
analyzing a very complex behavior. Further studies should further
assess teacher beliefs and characteristics and investigate the possible
role of teachers’ self-efficacy.

Students’ experiences as bully-victims

In the present study, an association between teachers’ self-efficacy and stu-
dents’ combined bullying victimization and bullying perpetration was not
found. This finding could be explained both by the unique characteristics of
students who are bully-victims and by methodological aspects.
Bully-victims are students who are both bullied and bully others. They may use
perpetration behavior as maladaptive coping strategies in response to their own
victimization experiences. Because of this, bullying perpetration behavior seems
to be especially functional to them. Teachers’ self-confident actions or higher
rates of intervention may not be enough motivation for these students to change
their behavior. Consequently, teachers’ intervention competencies such as self-
efficacy may not be related to the percentage of bully-victims in the classroom.
However, it is also possible that connections between teachers’ self-efficacy
and students’ combined bullying perpetration and victimization may exist but
were not evident because of sample size. Students who are both perpetrators
and targets of bullying account for a small portion of the student population. In
the current study, only 35 students out of more than 2,000 students were
classified as bully-victims. With such a small group, statistically relevant results
are hard to find. An apparent comparison of the regression coefficient and the
resulting Odds Ratio for the association between teachers’ self-efficacy and
students’ combined bullying victimization and perpetration, and students’
perpetration behavior show that the coefficients are very similar to each other.
Chances of being a student who is both bullied and bullies others also fall by
more than 30%, with every increase by one standard deviation in teachers’
bullying intervention self-efficacy. Different sample sizes may explain why this
ratio is significant in one analysis and not the other. Therefore, methodological
problems may account for the finding.

Students’ experiences as victims of bullying

The association between class teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying
victimization experiences has been researched before with mixed results,
including no significant associations (Khoury-Kassabri, 2011; De Luca et al.,
2019), negative associations (Gregus et al., 2017), and positive associations
(Oldenburg et al., 2015). In the current study, no association between teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs and students’ victimization was found, which is in line with
14 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

the results reported by both De Luca et al. (2019) and Khoury-

Kassabri (2011). As we found a significant association between class
teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ perpetration, the missing
association with students’ victimization seems surprising initially.
A possible explanation is that students who bully others may pick on
several students. That means that fewer students may show perpetration
behavior, but that more students feel bullied by them. The number of
students who identi-fied themselves as bullies and victims of bullying in a
German study supports that assumption. In this study, as twice as many
students reported being victimized as students who reported bullying others
(Fischer, John, Melzer et al., 2020b). Increased anti-bullying actions by
schools may sensitize students to bullying in general. Because of increased
awareness, more students may realize that what happens to them is
considered bullying and, therefore, report more victimization experiences.
This association is closely linked to a possible reporting effect of students
due to internalized anti-bullying class norms, as explained previously.
Further, bullying perpetration behavior might be influenced more by tea-
cher intervention than bullying victimization experiences. Results from bully-
ing prevention research support this explanation. Anti-bullying prevention
programs usually lead to a slightly greater decline in bullying perpetration
behavior than bullying victimization experiences (Gaffney et al., 2019; Ng et
al., 2020; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,
1991) and socialization models support this explanation as these theories
focus mainly on students’ active behavior. Together, these theories posit that
as the teacher confidently models effective bullying intervention, students are
more likely to internalize the norm that bullying behaviors as unacceptable.
Thus, we expected to find the association between teachers’ self-efficacy and
students’ bullying experiences. Secondly, the number of victimi-zation can
only decrease when fewer students engage in active bullying behavior. The
association between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ bullying
victimization is an indirect association via students’ active bullying behavior.
Thus, the small decrease in bullying perpetration directly related to teachers’
increased self-efficacy may make it difficult to detect a possible association to
students’ victimization experiences.

Limitations
Some limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting
the results. The teacher sample is predominantly female and highly
experienced in teaching. Generalization of the results to other samples
with characteristics different than these should be made with caution.
Students’ bullying behaviors and bullying victimization experiences only have little
shared variance at the class level (level 2). Also, the effect of class
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 15

teachers’ self-efficacy for students’ bullying perpetration behavior is

small. The small shared variance and the small effect size are not
unusual because of the high complexity of bullying and several
mechanisms that establish this asso-ciation. This must be noted when
interpreting the meaning of teacher’s bullying intervention self-efficacy.
The present results are obtained from a cross-sectional study design. One
cannot infer causality from these data. As supported by the model of condi-
tions and consequences of teachers’ bullying interventions, teachers may
develop higher self-efficacy beliefs when their students bully less, or vice
versa. A complex interaction between teachers’ self-efficacy and students’
bullying perpetration is possible in which both factors influence each other.
Further studies should explore the phenomenon longitudinally.
Students’ bullying victimization, bullying perpetration, and combined
vic-timization and perpetration were assessed with students’ self-
reports. Future studies should include behavioral indicators using
observation, teacher rating, or peer rating to avoid self-report bias.

Practical implications
Our results suggest that teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy may be
associated with students’ bullying perpetration behavior. If further studies sup-
port this finding, professional development should focus on supporting teachers’
bullying-related self-efficacy as this may help decrease bullying in schools.
Several studies show that it is possible to improve teachers’ self-
efficacy in carefully designed training (Crooks et al., 2017; Newman-
Carlson & Horne, 2004). Teachers with higher self-efficacy beliefs report
intervening more often in bullying situations (Fischer et al., 2020a). The
experience of successfully intervening in bullying situations will, in turn,
further increase teachers’ bullying intervention self-efficacy.
Professional development could include role play and virtual learning
environments. Real-life bullying episodes can bolster the validity of such
training. Thus, teachers could be encouraged to discuss their own bullying
experiences together. In group discussions, possible intervention behaviors
can be developed and reflected upon, with teachers learning from each
other’s experiences (Bandura, 1977). This type of training should be held on
at least two different dates with an appropriate period in between so that
teachers can put their newly learned strategies from the first trainingday into
practice and then reflect on their successes during thesecond. By doing so,
teachers can develop their bullying intervention self-efficacy by reflecting on
their own and vicarious experiences.
16 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

Conclusion
The present study suggests that higher self-efficacy of teachers may be
asso-ciated with reduced bullying behavior of students. This finding means
that teachers’ self-efficacy is not only relevant for teachers’ intervention
behavior but can also extend into students’ bullying experiences. Training
that is aimed to support teachers’ self-efficacy is therefore recommended.
However, the underlying mechanisms of the reported association remain
unclear. Moreover, teachers’ higher self-efficacy does not seem to be
reflected in students’ bullying victimization, nor do they seem to affect bully-
victims. Further analyses should investigate the presented associations and
their underlying processes in more detail.

Author Note
Saskia M. Fischer, Department of Pedagogical Psychology, Brandenburg University of
Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany, E-mail: saskia.fischer@b-tu.de, ORCID iD:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2753-6297; Heather A. Woods, Faculty of Education, University of
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, E-mail: hwood082@uottawa.ca; Ludwig Bilz, Department of
Pedagogical Psychology, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg,
Germany, E-mail: ludwig.bilz@b-tu.de, ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3017-0492
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Grant No. BI 1046/6-1).

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (Grant No. BI 1046/6-1).

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

Some of the results were presented at the conference “Teacher Efficacy and Inclusive
st
Education” in Wuppertal, Germany, in April 2018 and at the 51 congress of the German
Psychological Society in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in September 2018.

Funding
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; German
Research Foundation) [grant number BI 1046/6-1].

ORCID

Saskia M. Fischer http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2753-6297

Heather A. Woods http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6841-1039
Ludwig Bilz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3017-0492
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 17

Ethical Standards and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
responsible committee on human experimentation [approved by the Saxony
Education Agency] and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-
T https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Human Behavior (pp. 71–81). Academic Press.
Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV Model of teachers’ professional competence.
In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.),
Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers
(pp. 25–48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_2
Bierman, K. L. (2011). The promise and potential of studying the „invisible hand” of teacher
influence on peer relations and student outcomes: A commentary. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.004
Bilz, L. (2008). Schule und psychische Gesundheit. Risikobedingungen für
emotionale Auffälligkeiten von Schülerinnen und Schülern [School and mental
health. Risk factors for students‘ emotional abnormalities]. VS-Verlag.
Bilz, L., Schubarth, W., & Ulbricht, J. (2015). Der Umgang von Lehrkräften mit Schülergewalt
und -mobbing: ein Überblick über den Forschungsstand und Ausblick auf ein
Forschungsprojekt [how teachers deal with student violence and bullying: An overview of the
state of research and outlook for a research project]. Discourse. Journal of Childhood and
Adolescence Research, 1-2015, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.3224/diskurs.v10i1.17701
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain
& M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 37–43). Freeman.
Crooks, C. V., Jaffe, P. G., & Rodriguez, A. (2017). Increasing knowledge and self-
efficacy through a pre-service course on promoting positive school climate: The
crucial role of reducing moral disengagement. Advances in School Mental Health
Promotion, 10(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2016.1249383
De Luca, L., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2019). The teacher’s role in preventing bullying.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10(Art), 1830. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01830
Evans, C. B. R., Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R. A., Mercado, M. C., & Marshall, K. J.
(2018). Cumulative bullying experiences, adolescent behavioral and mental health,
and academic achievement: An integrative model of perpetration, victimization, and
bystander behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2415–2428.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1078-4
Farmer, T. W., McAuliffe Lines, M., & Hamm, J. V. (2011). Revealing the invisible hand:
The role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32(5), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.006
18 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral
Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Fischer, S. M., John, N., & Bilz, L. (2020a). Teachers‘ self-efficacy in prevening and
intervening in school bullying: A systematic review. International Journal of Bullying
Prevention. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00079-y
Fischer, S. M., John, N., Melzer, W., Kaman, A., Winter, K., & Bilz, L. (2020b).
Traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Germany
– Cross-sectional results of the 2017/19 HBSC study and trends. Journal of Health
Monitoring, 5(3), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.25646/6902
Fischer, S. M., Ulbricht, J., & Bilz, L. (2017). Skala zur erfassung der
mobbingbezogenen selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von lehrkräften [measure to
assess teachers‘ bullying-related self-efficacy]. Zusammenstellung
sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. https://doi.org/ 10.6102/zis251
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of
school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 45, 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis.
Pediatrics, 132(4), 720–729. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0614
Gregus, S. J., Rodriguez, J. H., Pastrana, F. A., Craig, J. T., McQuillin, S. D., &
Cavell, T. A. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy and intentions to use anti-bullying
practices as predictors of children’s peer victimization. School Psychology Review,
46(3), 304–319. https://doi.org/10. 17105/SPR-2017-0060.V46-3
Heerde, J. A., & Hemphill, S. A. (2019). Are bullying perpetration and victimization
associated with adolescent deliberate self-harm? A meta-analysis. Archives of Suicide
Research, 23(3), 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2018.1472690
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer
victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 17(4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
IBM. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0.
Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2011). Student victimization by peers in elementary schools:
Individual, teacher-class, and school-level predictors. Child Abuse & Neglect,
35(4), 273–282. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.004
Lereya, S. T., Copeland, W. E., Zammit, S., & Wolke, D. (2015). Bully/victims: A
longitudinal, population-based cohort study of their mental health. European Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(12), 1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0705-5
Longobardi, C., Settanni, M., Lin, S., & Fabris, M. A. (2020). Student-teacher
relationship quality and prosocial behaviour: The mediating role of academic
achievement and a positive attitude towards school. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91(2), 547–562. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12378
Margraf, H., & Pinquart, M. (2016). Bullying and social support: Variation by school-
type and emotional or behavioural disturbances. Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, 21(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2016.1165970
Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying
prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 55(5), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007
Moore, S. E., Norman, R. E., Suetani, S., Thomas, H. J., Sly, P. D., & Scott, J. G. ( 2017).
Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 19

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2011). Multilevel modelling with latent variables using
Mplus: Cross-sectional analysis. Course 7. Mplus Short Course Series. Muthén &
Muthén. http:// www.statmodel.com/course_materials.shtml 23.May.2021
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide. Eighth edition. Muthén &
Muthén. https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUserGuideVer_8.pdf
23 May 2021.
Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. M. (2004). Bully busters: A psychoeducational intervention
for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 82(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00309.x
Ng, E. D., Chua, J. Y. X., & Shorey, S. (2020). The effectiveness of educational
interventions on traditional bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse. Online First
Publication. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1524838020933867
Oldenburg, B., van Duijn, M., Sentse, M., Huitsing, G., van der Ploeg, R., Salmivalli,
C., & Veenstra, R. (2015). Teacher characteristics and peer victimization in
elementary schools: A classroom-level perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 43(1), 33–44. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10802-013-9847-4
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. University of
Bergen, Research Center for Health Promotion.
Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying. Some critical issues. In
S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of bullying
in schools: An international perspective (pp. 9–33). Routledge.
Pontillo, M., Tata, M. C., Averna, R., Demaria, F., Gargiullo, P., Guerrera, S.,
Pucciarini, M. L., Santonastaso, O., & Vicari, S. (2019). Peer victimization and
onset of social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. Brain Sciences, 9(6),
Article 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ brainsci9060132
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
Smith, P. K., López-Castro, L., Robinson, S., & Görzig, A. (2019). Consistency of gender
differences in bullying in cross-cultural surveys. Aggression and Violent Behaviour,
45, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.04.006
Sung, Y.-H., Lu, C.-Y., Chen, L.-M., & Valcke, M. (2020). Teachers’ cognitions and
handling strategies regarding bully-victims. Research Papers in Education, 35(3),
249–265. https://doi. org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1547919
Teerenstra, S., Moerbeek, M., van Achterberg, T., Pelzer, B. J., & Borm, G. F. (2008).
Sample size calculations for 3-level cluster randomized trials. Clinical Trials, 5(5),
486–495. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1740774508096476
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to
reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 7(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1
Wachs, S., Bilz, L., Niproschke, S., & Schubarth, W. (2019). Bullying intervention in schools
A multilevel analysis of teachers’ success in handling bullying from the students’ perspective.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(5), 642–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618780423
Yoon, J., & Bauman, S. (2014). Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of
bullying prevention and intervention. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 308–314.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00405841.2014.947226
Yoon, J. S., & Barton, E. (2008). The role of teachers in school violence and bullying prevention.
In T. W. Miller (Ed.), School violence and primary prevention (pp. 249–275). Springer.
20 S. M. FISCHER ET AL.

Zych, I., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Protective factors against bullying
and cyberbullying: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 45, 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008