188


Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Let./Vol. 69 (135)



Št./No. 3/2018
Str. /pp. 188–205

Anna Alajbeg

ISSN 0038 0474

Correlation between the level of
victimization and the quality of family
interaction, school attachment, and
social self-efficacy
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to analyze and explain the correlations between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction, school attachment, and social self-efficacy. The study included
715 students (54% girls and 46% boys) from both seventh (N = 370) and eighth (N = 345) grades from
different regions of the Republic of Croatia; the average age was 13.22 years (SD = 0.664). Along with
the General Data Questionnaire, measuring instruments used for this paper were the Quality of Family
Interaction Scale (KOBI), the School Bonding Scale, the School Anxiety Scale, the Social Self-Efficacy
Scale, and the adapted Participant Role Questionnaire (PRQ). A descriptive analysis showed that the
largest number of victims experienced verbal (occasionally: 48.8%; often: 18.6%) and relational violence
(occasionally: 30.6%; often: 12.3%). The correlation analysis showed a weak but statistically significant
negative correlation between the quality of family interaction and the level of victimization, a negative
correlation between school bonding and fear of school with the level of victimization, and a negative
correlation between social self-efficacy and the level of victimization. The results of this research may
serve as a great starting point for further research and may pose important implications for creating
preventive programs to reduce and prevent both bullying and cyberbullying nationwide.
Keywords: victimization, peer violence, quality of family interaction, school bonding, social self-efficacy
UDC: 37.015.4
Scientific article

Anna Alajbeg, PhD, University of Split, Faculty of kinesiology, Ulica Nikole Tesle 6, 21000 Split, Croatia;
e-mail: anna.alajbeg@gmail.com



Alajbeg

189

Introduction
Violence among children has always existed, both inside and outside school;
however, awareness regarding the seriousness of this problem as well as the adverse
consequences for participating children has only recently increased.
The terms “bullying” and “peer violence” first started being used in the United
Kingdom during the 1990s and were considered types of aggressive behavior (Rivers
et al. 2007). Regarding peer violence, Dan Olweus (1998) stated that a student is
abused or victimized when repeatedly and permanently exposed to negative actions
by one or more peers, and that a victimized child has difficulties when trying to
defend himself from violent behavior. Due to a higher incidence of violent behavior,
peer abuse is a more difficult form of bullying than peer violence and implies a
lower occurrence of attacks (occasionally [1-3 times in the last few months] or less
frequently) (Olweus 1999). Recently, another form of violent behavior emerged,
which is currently known as cyberbullying (Hinduja and Patchin 2008). Cyberbullying implies violent behavior through the use of electronic devices (text messages, e-mail, websites, online games, social networks). Research shows that many
children and young people are involved in both traditional and electronic forms of
peer violence. Although different researchers use different methodologies, most
studies have found that most children are exposed to more verbal violence, which
occurs in 53% (Wang et al. 2009; Vieno et al. 2011) to 76% of children (Stockdale
et al. 2002), than both relational violence (disruption of relationships, gossiping,
etc.), which occurs in 51% (Wang et al. 2009; Vieno et al. 2011) to 77.6% of children
(Rajhvajn Bulat and Ajduković 2012), and physical violence, which occurs in 20%
(Wang et al. 2009) to 66% of children (Stockdale et al. 2002). Cyberbullying also
shows considerable variability in victimization rates, ranging from 4% (Ybarra and
Mitchell 2004) to 72% (Juvonen and Gross 2008). Levels of committing cyberbullying
also vary along the range from 3% (Kowalski and Witte 2006) to 55% (Li 2006).
Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) stated that victims of traditional peer violence are
more likely to also become victims of cyberbullying. Previous research has found
that children who have experienced peer violence possess more health-, emotion-,
and school-related problems than those who have not been victimized. The most

190

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

frequent consequences of perceived peer violence are anxiety (Fekkes et al. 2004)
and depression (Wang et al. 2011). It was also discovered that victims of peer
violence have a significantly greater risk of experiencing psychosomatic problems
(Gini and Pozzoli 2009). Experienced peer violence is also reflected in educational
achievements. Victims often avoid classes, do not like going to school, and receive
bad grades (Kowalski and Limber 2013; Wang et al. 2014).
Regarding the gender of victims of traditional and electronic peer violence,
research results are ambiguous. According to some research (Beckman et al. 2013),
there is no gender preference regarding traditional peer violence victims, while other
research (Wang et al. 2009) found that boys are more often victims of physical and
verbal violence and girls are more often victims of relational violence. Furthermore,
some authors (Underwood and Rosen 2011) found that there are no gender differences among victims of electronic violence, while others (Wang et al. 2009) state that
girls are much more frequently victims of electronic violence than are boys. Such
results may be interpreted in a way that implies authors conduct their research
among different age groups of respondents, use different measuring instruments
and methods of data processing, and therefore fail to obtain consistent results. In
terms of age, previous researchers (Kowalski and Limber 2007, Vandebosch and
Van Cleemput 2009) found that younger children are more frequently victims of
traditional violence, while older children are more frequently victims of electronic
violence; this disparity exists because adolescents generally possess more advanced
social and communicative skills than younger children but are still emotionally
immature, which is why they more commonly use indirect forms of violence.
Recent research also links socioeconomic status of the family with the occurrence of peer violence. Tippett and Wolke (2014) conducted a systematic review
of 28 studies that concerned the socioeconomic status and role of both bullies and
victims and concluded that victims are more likely to originate from a family of
low socioeconomic status. Sušac et al. (2016) conducted a survey of 3,470 students
in both fifth and seventh grades of primary school and second grade of secondary
school. They found that victims in all age groups are more frequently from below
average material status compared to children who do not experience violence. With
gender, age, school achievement, and socioeconomic status of the family being the
most commonly investigated variables of peer violence, some research (Jansen et al.
2012) also mentions the role of parent education. The study by Jansen et al. (2012),
conducted in the Netherlands on a sample of 6,379 pre-school children, found that
a lower level of parental education was associated with victimization. Peer violence
is also greatly affected by family interactions, where the relationship between children and parents is particularly important (Veenstra et al. 2005; Georgiou 2008).
The role of quality family interaction
The role of parents in child development is extremely important. According to
Ronald Rohner’s parental acceptance-rejection theory (1999), the basic dimension
of parental behavior is emotionality; this dimension consists of two poles: accep-

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

191

tance and rejection from parents. However, the basic objection to the concept of
acceptance/rejection is that there is apparently only a continuum from acceptance
to rejection. Acceptance implies greater mutual intimacy, trust, and understanding
between the child and the mother/father. Rejection means that a child experiences
more prohibition, coercion, and neglect by the mother/father. Parental acceptance
is what is implied by quality family interactions (Vulić Prtorić 2002).
Previous research (Georgiou 2008) shows that parental rejection is connected
to the of experience of peer victimization. In their research, Sušac et al. (2016)
stated that, in most age groups (fifth and seventh grades of primary school and
second grade of secondary school) and types of domestic violence, perpetrators/
victims is the group with the largest number of those who experience violence in
the family, followed by the victims group, and then followed by the perpetrators
group. The same authors pointed out that the difference between victims and
perpetrators (indicating greater exposure of victims to domestic violence) is the
most obvious factor regarding the experience of psychological abuse in the family.
Contrary to negative attitudes of parents toward children or parental rejection,
Georgiou (2008) pointed out that a child’s excessive attachment to one or both
parents and an exceptionally protective relationship between a parent and a child
may limit the development of the child’s social skills as well as the child’s ability
to effectively solve peer problems, often transforming the child into a passive and
obedient individual and a consequently easy target for the perpetrator. Victimization is also associated with greater involvement of parents in the child’s educational
responsibilities, which can be reflected in the lack of the child’s self-confidence as
he develops the perception of being unable to perform his school responsibilities
independently (Nansel et al. 2004).
Given that children spend most of their time in a family environment, patterns of their behavior are most often associated with different family interactions.
School is the environment in which children spend the most time away from home,
so school variables should also be examined.
The role of school bonding
The school environment is where the child is influenced by various factors
that can significantly contribute to his development either in a positive or negative
way, and thus greatly determines the direction of developmental outcomes. Osher
et al. (2014) stated that school bonding, following family affiliation, is the most
important protective factor for the healthy emotional development of the child.
School bonding is first mentioned in the Social Control Theory of Travis Warner
Hirsch (1969) and is subsequently mentioned in the Social Development Model
by Catalano and Hawkins (1996), the latter of which represents an upgrade from
Hirsch’s theories (Roviš and Bezinović 2011). In the aforementioned theory and
model, school bonding is categorized by attachment, commitment, and involvement.
Roviš and Bezinović (2011, p. 187) pointed out that inclusion is a prerequisite for
bonding with school, and it can only be observed through dimensions of attachment

192

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

and commitment. The same authors described attachment as what an individual
feels for his school and his teachers, such as how much he cares about the school
and the relationships he forms within it, while commitment to school implies a
level of willingness to invest time and effort into activities that arise from school
relationships and requirements (i.e., regularity of studying and doing homework,
good time organization and efficient study plans, and the effort invested in achieving
better academic success).
Recent studies (Cunningham 2007; Schneider et al. 2012) found that low
school attendance is also associated with the experience of victimization and
violent behaviors. According to research by Schneider et al. (2012) conducted
on 20,406 American students in ninth and twelfth grades, victims of traditional
violence (20.6%) are least attached to school, followed by perpetrators/victims of
traditional violence (14.9%), followed by victims of electronic violence (7.9%). In her
survey conducted on a sample of 1,012 Belgrade students in the higher grades of
elementary school, Popović Ćitić (2012) arrived at the conclusion that non-violent
students are most strongly invested in school, while poor attachment to school is
a characteristic observed in victimized students. In a Croatian study conducted on
a sample of 1,927 high school students, Roviš and Bezinović (2011) found that experiencing physical peer violence has a strongly negative effect on feeling attached
to school and causes victims to perceive school as a dangerous and repulsive place.
The authors claim that physical abuse has proven to be significant for attachment,
but not for commitment, which points to conceptual differences in dimensions of
commitment and attachment. Fear of school is also connected to attachment to
school, but fear of school was found to be a statistically insignificant predictor of
school attachment and a significantly positive predictor for school commitment.
A great expression of fear of school is associated with a higher level of commitment
and effort for meeting school requirements.
While some students enjoy attending school to learn and socialize with peers,
going to school is a fear for others that often leads to various behavioral, emotional,
and psychosomatic problems. Fear of school is most commonly associated with the
educational process, but the influence of student relationships must also be taken
into account. In this regard, special attention is paid to students’ exposure to peer
violence or victimization (Astor et al. 2006); children who have experienced peer
violence may develop a fear of school because they perceive it as an unsafe place
(Olweus 1998). Fear of school can manifest itself in a variety of ways, including:
the child is reluctant to go to school, the child forgets his homework, the child fears
being tested, and the child is afraid of a teacher or a parent (Brajša-Žganec et al.
2009). Along with the fear of school, there also exists the fear of possible exposure
to peer violence, which is reflected in greater absenteeism, less motivation for
studying, and consequently poorer educational achievements (Juvonen et al. 2000).
Recently, studying the role of family and school in different behaviors of children
has been expanded with research on the role of peers regarding child development.
Bandura (1977) stated that peers also affect on the development of the child’s selfefficacy, which is particularly important for peer violence.

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

193

The role of social self-efficacy
Social self-efficacy refers to the perceived ability to initiate social contacts and
develop new friendships as well as develop assertiveness (Bandura 1977, VulićPrtorić, and Sorić 2006). Children with greater self-confidence also have more
social self-efficacy and often achieve a higher status in their peer group. Puckett
et al. (2008) stated that social self-efficacy is positively associated with perceived
popularity. Popular children are often involved in peer groups of similar levels of
self-efficacy and prosocial behavior that model and mutually reinforce prosocial
behavior. Bandura (1977) stated that one of the sources of self-efficacy assessment
is the child’s perception of how others behave, and peers are undoubtedly a natural
comparison group in which the child can perceive which actions they are capable
of performing. The success or failure of a child’s varying behavior in relation to
his peers can affect the estimation of self-efficacy. Children with higher levels of
self-efficacy choose more challenging tasks and situations, invest more effort, are
more persistent, and experience less anxiety than children with lower levels of selfefficacy (McCormick and McPherson 2003). Self-efficacy can be affected by various
physical and emotional states such as tiredness, pain, or moods that can temporarily
decrease these levels (Puckett et al. 2008). In previous research (Erozkan and
Deniz 2012), it has been consistently indicated that children who are more lonely,
depressive, and socially anxious exhibit lower levels of social self-efficacy. Victims
of peer violence have low self-esteem, low self-respect, and weak social skills, and
are therefore more frequently exposed to victimization (Brajša-Žganec at al. 2009);
however, due to these characteristics, they also often possess lower levels of social
self-efficacy (Benight and Bandura 2004).
In the research conducted thus far, the correlation between family interactions and school bonding with victimization was analyzed individually, but there
is insufficient research that examines the connection between victimization and
some family, school, and peer factors, which was the ultimate purpose of this paper.
Methodology
The aim of this paper is to analyze and explain the correlation between the
level of victimization and the quality of family interaction, school attachment, and
social self-efficacy. In accordance with the research purpose, the following research
questions and hypotheses have been set:
Research question 1: Is there a correlation between the level of victimization
and the quality of family interactions?
H1: There is a negative correlation between the level of victimization and
acceptance from mother and father as well as family satisfaction, and a positive
correlation with the rejection from mother and father.
Research question 2: Is there a correlation between the level of victimization
and school bonding?

194

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

H2: There is a negative correlation between the level of victimization and
school bonding.
Research question 3: Is there a correlation between the level of victimization
and the fear of school?
H3: There is a positive correlation between the level of victimization and the
fear of school.
Research question 4: Is there a correlation between the level of victimization
and social self-efficacy?
H4: There is a negative correlation between the level of victimization and
social self-efficacy.
Participants
The study was conducted on 715 students from seven primary schools in different regions of the Republic of Croatia (Central Croatia, Northwestern Croatia,
Eastern Croatia, Istria, Primorje, and Dalmatia). Gender structure was balanced
(54% of girls [N = 386] and 46% of boys [N = 329]). 51.7% (N = 370) were students
in seventh grade and 48.3% (N = 345) were students in eighth grade. Respondents’
average age was 13.22 years (SD = 0.664).
Method
The survey was conducted through an in-class group examination in autumn
of 2015. Prior to the survey, students were given instructions for filling out the
questionnaire and were notified that participation was voluntary, anonymous, and
they were permitted to abandon the questionnaire at any point in time without
incurring any consequences.
Measuring instruments
Along with the General Data Questionnaire that included questions about
gender, age, class, school achievement, parent education, parent income, and socioeconomic status of the family, measuring instruments used were:
Adapted Participant Role Questionnaire (PRQ) (Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviors associated with bullying in schools, Salmivalli
and Voeten 2004).
The original scale for the various roles of children regarding traditional peer
violence consisted of a total of five subscales (bully, active assistant, passive assistant, defender, bystander, and victim), and each subscale was consisted of three
items. For the purpose of this paper, the victim subscale was used and was expanded
with two additional items related to electronic violence (for example: I experienced
being offended and having rumors spread about me on social networks, forums,

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

195

blogs, etc.). Respondents used a three-step scale to assess how much they agreed
with the statements (1: never, 2: occasionally, and 3: often). Cronbach’s alpha, for
the subscale “victim”, was 0.733.
Quality of Family Interaction Scale (Vulić Prtorić 2004). For the purpose
of this paper, the original Quality of Family Interaction Scale was used, and it
was consisted of 55 items and five subscales: family satisfaction (eleven items,
for example: My family gets on my nerves), mother’s acceptance (ten items, for
example: I can always confide in my mother), father’s acceptance (ten items, for
example: I can always confide in my father), mother’s rejection (twelve items,
for example: My mother often shouts at me), and father’s rejection (twelve items,
for example: Sometimes I do not know what I did wrong for my father to punish
me). On Likert’s scale (from 1: not true at all, up to 5: yes, completely true), students evaluated how much they agreed with the statements. Cronbach’s alpha
for the subscale of “family satisfaction” was 0.866, 0.878 for mother’s acceptance, 0.910 for father’s acceptance, 0.867 for mother’s rejection, and 0.888 for
father’s rejection.
School Bonding Scale (Questionnaire for School Bonding and School Impact,
Roviš and Bezinović 2011). The study used the original School Bonding Scale, which
consisted of seventeen items and two subscales: school attachment (ten items, for
example: School encourages me to think and create new ideas) and school commitment (seven items, for example: When an oral or written exam is announced,
I plan when and how to study), which comprised students’ assessment of emotional
attachment to school and success in performing school responsibilities. Respondents
used a four-degree scale to assess how much they agreed with the statements (from
1: never, to 4: very often). Cronbach’s reliability coefficient was 0.898 for “school
attachment” and 0.830 for “school commitment”.
School Anxiety Scale (Questionnaire for School Bonding and School Impact,
Roviš and Bezinović 2011). The School Anxiety Scale was originally taken from
the Questionnaire for School Bonding and School Impact and consisted of six
items examining fear from teachers, exams, poor grades, and parental reactions
(for example: I’m scared of oral examinations). Respondents used a four-degree
scale to assess how much they agreed with the statements (from 1: never, to
4: very often). Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for the School Anxiety Scale
was 0.812.
The Self-Efficacy Scale (Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children, Vulić Prtorić
et al. 2006) was originally taken from the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children,
examining social, academic, and emotional self-efficacy. For the purposes of this
paper, only the Social Self-Sufficiency Scale was used (for example: I can easily express my opinion even when other children disagree with me). This scale measures
the perceived ability for relationships with peers. Respondents used a five-degree
scale to assess how much they agreed with the statements (from 1: not at all,
to 5: yes, completely). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.

196

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

Results
Descriptive analysis was used to examine the percentage of children experiencing various forms of traditional and electronic violence, and the results are
presented in Table 1.
Never Occasionally Often

bullying

Cyber

Traditional
violence

(%)
I experienced being beaten by my peers.

80.3

15.4

4.3

I experience being mocked and called bad names by my peers.

32.6

48.8

18.6

I experienced my peers wanting to exclude me from their group, in
order for me to feel lonely in school, on practice, etc.

57.1

30.6

12.3

I experienced my peers insulting me and spreading lies about me on
social networks, forums, blogs, etc.

67.6

25.5

7

I experienced being humiliated and mocked on social networks,
forums, blogs, etc.

71.2

22.1

6.7

Table 1: Descriptive indicators of experiencing peer violence

For this study, we used a descriptive analysis to examine the average school
achievement, socioeconomic status, level of mother’s and father’s education, and
financial income. The results are presented in Table 2.
M

SD

Min.

Max.

School achievement

4.33

0.726

1

5

Socioeconomic status

3.43

0.687

1

5

Mother’s financial income

2.09

0.290

1

3

Father’s financial income

2.10

0.307

1

3

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of variables school achievement, socioeconomic status, and level of parent
education

The self-reported average school achievement was 4.33 (SD = 0.726). The
highest number of participants possessed excellent (46.7%) and very good (41%)
school achievement, while 11.5% of participants possessed good school achievement and 0.4% of participants possessed fair school achievement. According to
self-assessed respondents, the majority considered their socioeconomic status
average (58.6%) and above average (31.7%), and a considerably smaller number
considered their socioeconomic status very high (7.1%) and below average (1.7%),
while no respondent considered their socioeconomic status very low. Considering
the level of parent education, the highest number of mothers (37.9%) and fathers
(41.1%) received a college education, while 48.9% of mothers and 51% of fathers

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

197

finished high school. There were significantly fewer parents who received a master’s
of science (4.9% of mothers and 2% of fathers) and a doctorate of science (4.3% of
mothers and 3.1% of fathers), and a similarly low percentage of parents who only
completed elementary school (3.9% of mothers and 2.9% of fathers). According
to the self-assessed respondents, 90.8% of mothers and 89.5% of fathers had an
average financial income.
This research also examined children’s perceptions of the quality of family
interactions. Table 3 shows descriptive statistics for the perception of the quality
of family interaction.
M

SD

Min.

Max.

Family satisfaction

4.384

0.591

1.27

5.00

Mother’s acceptance

4.352

0.685

1.00

5.00

Mother’s rejection

1.798

0.697

1.00

4.67

Father’s acceptance

4.064

0.850

1.00

5.00

Father’s rejection

1.737

0.727

1.00

4.83

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for the quality of family interaction

It was found that most children are satisfied with their families (M = 4.384;
SD = 0.591) and feel accepted by their mothers (M = 4.352; SD = 0.685) and
fathers (M = 4.065; SD = 0.850). We note that, according to the respondents’ selfassessments, acceptance from the mother was somewhat higher than acceptance
from the father. The number of respondents experiencing rejection from the mother
(M = 1.798; SD = 0.697) and rejection from the father (M = 1.737, SD = 0.727)
was significantly lower. Table 4 shows descriptive statistics for the perception of
school bonding, school fear, and social self-efficacy.
M

SD

Min.

Max.

Commitment to school obligations

3.169

0.530

1.00

4.00

Attachment to school

2.789

0.642

1.00

4.00

Fear of school

2.491

0.730

1.00

4.00

Social self-efficacy

3.871

0.683

1.44

5.00

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of school bonding, school fear, and social self-efficacy

According to the respondents’ self-assessments, they were more committed
to school obligations (M = 3.169; SD = 0.530) than they were attached to school
(M = 2.789; SD = 0.642). More than half of the students felt some fear of school
(M = 2.491; SD = 0.730). The results obtained indicate that more than half of
the participants considered themselves as possessing good social self-efficacy
(M = 3.871; SD = 0.683).

198

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

In accordance with the research questions and hypotheses for establishing a
correlation between the level of victimization and the sociodemographic, family,
and school variables with social self-efficacy, the correlation analysis was conducted
using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Table 5 shows the results of the correlation between the level of victimization and the sociodemographic factors.
School achievement

Mother’s income

Father’s income

-0.122**

0.059

0.128**

Level of victimization
Note: **p < 0,01; *p < 0.05.

Table 5: Correlation between the level of victimization and the sociodemographic factors

The correlation analysis found that there is a weak, but statistically significant,
negative correlation between the level of victimization and school achievement
(r = -0.122, p < 0.01). It has also been found that there is a weak, statistically significant positive correlation between the level of victimization and father’s financial
income (r = 0.128, p < 0.01), but no statistically significant correlation between
the level of victimization and mother’s income.
In accordance with the first research question and the first hypothesis, we
analyzed the correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family
interactions, and the results are presented in Table 6.

Level of victimization

Family
satisfaction

Mother’s
acceptance

Mother’s
rejection

Father’s
acceptance

Father’s
rejection

-0.246**

-0.141**

0.215**

-0.229**

0.257**

Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Table 6: Correlation between the level of victimization and variables of quality family interaction

These results indicate that there is a weak negative correlation between the
level of victimization and acceptance (r = -0.141, p < 0.01) from the mother and
father (r = -0.229, p < 0.01). The results indicate that a weak positive correlation was found between the level of victimization and rejection from the mother
(r = 0.215, p < 0.01) and father (r = 0.257, p < 0.01). Also, it was found that the
level of victimization negatively correlated with family satisfaction (r = -0.246, p
< 0.01).
The correlation results between the level of victimization and the variables of
school bonding, school fear, and social self-efficacy are presented in Table 7.

Level of victimization

Commitment to
school obligations

Attachment to
school

Fear of
school

Social
self-efficacy

-0.039

-0.075**

0.165**

-0.160**

Note: **p < 0,01; *p < 0.05.
Table 7: Correlation between the level of victimization and the variables of school bonding, fear of
school, and social self-efficacy

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

199

The correlation analysis results indicate a weak negative correlation between
the level of victimization and attachment to school (r = -0.075, p < 0.01). The
analysis also indicates a positive correlation between the level of victimization and
fear of school (r = 0.165, p < 0.01). There is a weak negative correlation between
levels of victimization and social self-efficacy (r = -0.160, p < 0.01).
Discussion
This research sought to examine the correlation between the level of victimization and the chosen sociodemographic variables. There was a weak, statistically
significant negative correlation between the level of victimization and school success. This result is consistent with the results found by other studies (Kowalski and
Limber 2013; Wang et al. 2014). It is possible that victims are less concentrated on
schoolwork and lose their will to excel, which is why they obtain worse grades, while
peer violence may lead to distractions or fears of new violence (Olweus 1998). It
is also possible that students are subjected to mockery by peers due to poor school
achievements. Since children often point out that victims are different than other
children, it is also possible that a more favorable financial status of victims’ parents in relation to their peers’ parents contributes to distinguishing victims from
other students, which is obviously a cause for provocation by perpetrators because
they are often envious of their victims. And, in previous research (Ajduković and
Rajhvajn Bulat 2012), it has been found that the lowest incidence of peer violence
involves children who perceive that material circumstances of their families are
similar to those of their peers’ families.
In accordance with the first hypothesis, expectations were confirmed, and
statistically significant weak correlations were found between the level of victimization and the variables of quality family interaction. Previous research has also
found that victims are less satisfied with their families and experience more rejection from their parents (Spriggs et al. 2007; Moore et al. 2012). Possible causes of
a victim’s family dissatisfaction may include negative parenting behavior toward
the child, disagreements or open fights among adult family members in the presence of the child, poor communication between the parents and the child, and
parents’ lack of love, intimacy, and child support (Olweus 1998); all of these factors may lead to the child withdrawing into himself, becoming shy and insecure,
and thus becoming the target for victimization because perpetrators recognize
these weaknesses.
The second hypothesis was also confirmed, as there was a weak, statistically
significant negative correlation between the level of victimization and attachment
to school. This result can be explained by the fact that victims experienced rejection
from their peers. Furthermore, if the victims experienced a lack of adult protection, the school was perceived as a dangerous place and these children, therefore,
did not feel close to such a system (Cunningham 2007; Roviš and Bezinović, 2011).
A positive correlation between the level of victimization and fear of school may be
explained by the fear of being tested, criticized by teachers and parents, punished

200

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

by parents for poor achievements, and mocked by peers (Brajša-Žganec et al. 2009).
Roviš and Bezinovic (2011) stated that a more profound fear of school correlates
with a higher level of commitment for students to fulfill their obligations and meet
school requirements. Fear of school can also be a result of experienced victimization,
as the victim often perceives school as a dangerous and unsafe place (Olweus 1998;
Roviš and Bezinović 2011). At the same time, fear of school can also be reflected in a
greater number of absences, less motivation for studying, and, consequently, fewer
educational achievements (Juvonen et al. 2000; Rigby 2007). The third hypothesis
was also confirmed by the study’s results.
The correlation analysis revealed a weak, statistically significant correlation
between the level of victimization and social self-efficacy. The results may be explained by a lack of confidence, optimism, and social support (Benight and Bandura
2004), the feeling of being powerless, being lonely, facing isolation, and not trusting
in one’s own abilities (Andreou 2004), and poor social skills relative to dealing with
conflict situations (Andreou et al. 2015).
Based on these results, we conclude that all hypotheses have been confirmed:
there is a negative correlation between the quality of family interactions and the
level of victimization, a negative correlation between school bonding and fear of
school with the level of victimization, and a negative correlation between social
self-efficacy and the level of victimization.
We observe that these factors play a significant role in explaining victimization, which is one of the advantages posed by this paper. The disadvantage of this paper is that the correlation plan does not allow us to make causal
conclusions and the results are based on the self-assessments of the respondents. At the same time, it would be beneficial to examine the contribution of
some other contextual factors and include respondents belonging to other age
groups.
Conclusion
This research illustrates that there is a negative correlation between the
quality of family interactions with the level of victimization, a negative correlation between school bonding and fear of school with the level of victimization, and
a negative correlation between social self-efficacy and the level of victimization.
These results serve as a great starting point for further research especially relative
to predicting the role of victimization and peer violence. The results of this study
confirm the set hypotheses and may be used to design preventive programs aimed
toward reducing and preventing both traditional and electronic forms of violence
among children.

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

201

References
Andreou, E. (2004). Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and
self‐efficacy in Greek primary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, issue 2, pp. 297-309.
Andreou, E., Didaskalou, E. and Vlachou, A. (2015). Bully/victim problems among Greek pupils
with special educational needs: associations with loneliness and self‐efficacy for peer
interactions. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15, issue 4, pp. 235-246.
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Vinokur, A. D. and Zeira, A. (2006). Arab and Jewish elementary
school students’ perceptions of fear and school violence: understanding the influence
of school context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, issue 1, pp. 91-118.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84, issue 2, pp. 191-215.
Beckman, L., Hagquist, C. and Hellström, L. (2013). Discrepant gender patterns for cyberbullying and traditional bullying–An analysis of Swedish adolescent data. Computers
in Human Behavior, 29, issue 5, pp. 1896-1903.
Benight, C. C. and Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The
role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour research and therapy, 42, issue 10, pp. 1129-1148.
Brajša-Žganec, A., Kotrla Topić, M. and Raboteg-Šarić, Z. (2009). Povezanost individualnih
karakteristika učenika sa strahom od škole i izloženosti nasilju od strane vršnjaka u
školskom okruženju. Društvena istraživanja, 18, issue 4-5, pp.717-738.
Catalano, R. F. and Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial
behavior. In: J. D. Hawkins (Ed.). Delinquency and crime: Current theories, New York:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-197.
Cunningham, N. J. (2007). Level of Bonding to School and Perception of the School Environment by Bullies, Victims, and Bully Victims. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, pp.
457-478.
Erozkan, A. and Deniz, S. (2012). The influence of social self-efficacy and learned resourcefulness on loneliness. The Online Journal of Counselling and Education, 1, pp. 57-84.
Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. and Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2004). Bullying: Who does what, when
and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health
education research, 20, issue 1, pp. 81-91.
Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, issue 1, pp. 109-125.
Gini, G. and Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems:
A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, issue 3, pp. 1059-1065.
Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J. W. (2008). Personal information of adolescents on the Internet: A
quantitative content analysis of MySpace. Journal of adolescence, 31, issue 1, pp. 125-146.
Jansen, P. W., Verlinden, M., Dommisse-van Berkel, A., Mieloo, C., van der Ende, J., Veenstra,
R. and Tiemeier, H. (2012). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children
in early elementary school: Do family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status
matter? BMC Public Health, 12, issue 1, p. 494.
Juvonen, J. and Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School health, 78, issue 9, pp. 496-505.
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A. and Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment,
and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
issue 2, pp. 349-359.

202

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

Kowalski, R. M. and Limber, S. P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students. Journal of adolescent health, 41, issue 6, pp. 22-30.
Kowalski, R. M. and Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and academic correlates of
cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, issue 1, pp. 13-20.
Kowalski, R. M. and Witte, J. (2006). Youth internet survey. Unpublished manuscript,
Clemson University.
McCormick, J. and McPherson, G. (2003). The role of self-efficacy in a musical performance
examination: An exploratory structural equation analysis. Psychology of Music, 31,
issue 1, pp. 37-51.
Moore, P. M., Huebner, E. S. and Hills, K. J. (2012). Electronic bullying and victimization
and life satisfaction in middle school students. Social Indicators Research, 107, issue
3, pp. 429-447.
Nansel, T. R., Craig, W., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G. and Ruan, W. J. (2004). Cross-national
consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 158, issue 8, pp. 730-736.
Olweus, D. (1998). Nasilje među djecom u školi: Što znamo i što možemo učiniti. Zagreb:
Školska knjiga.
Osher, D., Kendziora, K., Spier, E. and Garibaldi, M. L. (2014). School influences on child
and youth development. Defining Prevention Science, Springer US, pp. 151-169.
Popović-Ćitić, B. (2012). Vezanost za školu kod učenika koji imaju različite uloge u vršnjačkom
nasilju. Specijalna edukacija i rehabilitacija, 11, issue 4, pp. 547-564.
Puckett, M. B., Aikins, J. W. and Cillessen, A. H. (2008). Moderators of the association between relational aggression and perceived popularity. Aggressive Behavior, 34, issue
6, pp. 563-576.
Rajhvajn Bulat, L. and Ajduković, M. (2012). Obiteljske i psihosocijalne odrednice vršnjačkoga
nasilja među mladima. Psihologijske teme, 21, issue 1, pp. 167-194.
Raskauskas, J. and Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental psychology, 43, issue 3, pp. 564.
Rigby, K. (2007). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Victoria: ACER Press.
Rivers, I., Duncan, N. and Besag, V. E. (2007). Bullying: A handbook for educators and parents. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Rohner, R. P. (1999). Acceptance and rejection. Encyclopedia of human emotions, 1, pp. 6-14.
Roviš, D. and Bezinović, P. (2011). Vezanost za školu–analiza privrženosti školi i predanosti školskim obvezama kod srednjoškolaca. Sociologija i prostor, 49, issue 2,
pp. 185-208.
Salmivalli, C. and Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28,
issue 3, pp. 246-258.
Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A. and Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school
bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American
Journal of Public Health, 102 issue 1, pp. 171-177.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R. and Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying
involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, issue 3, pp. 283-293.

Correlation between the level of victimization and the quality of family interaction,

school
attachment, and social self-efficacy

203

Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K. and Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural
elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal
of Health Behavior, 26, issue 4, pp. 266-277.
Sušac, N., Ajduković, M. and Rimac, I. (2016). Učestalost vršnjačkog nasilja s obzirom na
obilježja adolescenata i doživljeno nasilje u obitelji. Psihologijske teme, 25, issue 2, pp.
197-221.
Tippett, N. and Wolke, D. (2014). Socioeconomic status and bullying: a meta-analysis. American journal of public health, 104, issue 6, pp. 48-59.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California.
Underwood, M. K. and Rosen, L. H. (2011). Gender and bullying. In: D. L. Espelage and S. M.
Swearer (Eds.). Bullying in North American schools. New York: Routledge, pp. 13-22.
Vandebosch, H. and Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of
bullies and victims. New media & society, 11, issue 8, pp. 1349-1371.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C. and Ormel,
J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: a comparison of bullies,
victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental psychology, 41,
issue, p. 672.
Vieno, A., Gini, G. and Santinello, M. (2011). Different forms of bullying and their association
to smoking and drinking behavior in Italian adolescents. Journal of School Health, 81,
issue 7, pp. 393-399.
Vulić-Prtorić, A., Sorić, I., Kramar, V. and Macuka, I. (2006). Upitnik samoefikasnosti za
djecu – SEQ-C. V. Ćubela Adorić et al. (eds.). Zbirka psihologijskih skala i upitnika –
III. Zadar: Odjel za psihologiju Sveučilišta u Zadru
Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2002). Strahovi u djetinjstvu i adolescenciji. Suvremena psihologija, 5,
issue 2, pp. 271-293.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. (2004). The Quality of Family Interaction Scale (KOBI). In: Zbirka psihologijskih skala i upitnika. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru.
Vulić-Prtorić, A. and Sorić, I. (2006). Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Children. In: Zbirka
psihologijskih skala i upitnika. Zadar: Sveučilište u Zadru.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J. and Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the
United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent health, 45,
issue 4, pp. 368-375.
Wang, J., Nansel, T. R. and Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential
association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, issue 4, pp. 415-417.
Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., McDougall, P., Krygsman, A., Smith, D. and Hymel,
S. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: Results from
a multi-informant study. School psychology quarterly, 29, issue 3, pp. 360-377.
Ybarra, M. L. and Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets:
A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45, issue 7, pp. 1308-1316.

204

Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies

Alajbeg

Anna ALAJBEG (Univerza v Splitu, Hrvaška)
POVEZANOST MED VIKTIMIZACIJO TER KAKOVOSTJO DRUŽINSKE INTERAKCIJE,
NAVEZANOSTJO NA ŠOLO IN ZMOŽNOSTJO NAVEZOVANJA SOCIALNIH STIKOV
Povzetek: Namen prispevka je analizirati in pojasniti statistično povezanost med ravnijo viktimizacije
učencev ter kakovostjo njihove družinske interakcije, navezanostjo na šolo in njihovo socialno učinkovitostjo. Predstavljamo rezultate raziskave, v katero je bilo vključenih 715 učencev (54 % deklic in 46
% dečkov) sedmega (N = 370) in osmega (N = 345) razreda osnovne šole v različnih hrvaških regijah.
Učenci so bili v povprečju stari 13,22 let (SD = 0,664). Podatke smo pridobivali z naslednjimi vprašalniki:
vprašalnikom za pridobivanje splošnih podatkov o anketirancih, Lestvico kakovosti družinske interakcije
(Quality of Family Interaction Scale – KOBI), Lestvico povezanosti s šolo (School Bonding Scale), Lestvico
šolske anksioznosti (School Anxiety Scale), Lestvico socialne učinkovitosti (Social Self-Efficacy Scale) ter
prilagojenim vprašalnikom o vlogi udeležencev (Participant Role Questionnaire – PQR). Deskriptivna
analiza podatkov je pokazala šibko, toda statistično pomembno negativno korelacijo med kakovostjo
družinske interakcije in ravnijo viktimizacije učencev, negativno korelacijo med povezanostjo s šolo
in ravnijo viktimizacije ter med slednjo in med šolsko anksioznostjo. Negativna je bila tudi korelacija
med socialno učinkovitostjo ter ravnijo viktimizacije. Rezultati raziskave so lahko pomembno izhodišče
za nadaljnje raziskave in imajo lahko pomembne implikacije pri snovanju preventivnih programov za
preprečevanje in zmanjševanje šolskega in spletnega nasilja.
Ključne besede: viktimizacija, vrstniško nasilje, kakovost družinske interakcije, druženje v šoli,
navezovanje socialnih stikov
Elektronski naslov: anna.alajbeg@gmail.com