Imed Chokri1,2,3*
Mohamed Jarraya1,3- 1High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
- 2High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia
- 3Research Laboratory, Education, Motricity, Sport and Health (EM2S), LR15JS01, High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia
Aim: Our study aims to examine the interactions between empathy, victimization, and the school climate in Tunisian primary schools.
Method: In total, 312 school children (158 boys and 154 girls), with a mean age of 10.75 ± 1.32 years old participated voluntarily in the study. The students answered three scales that measure the School Climate, the Victimization, and the Empathy.
Result: The results indicate a predominantly positive perception of the school climate by the students, both for the overall score (2.67 ± 0.64) and the scores of the different components of the school climate (ranging from 2.61 to 2.86). Also, girls seemed to have a more positive perception of the overall school climate, displaying higher scores (2.86 ± 0.54) compared to boys' scores (2.45 ± 0.67). Moreover, other results showed positive and statistically significant correlations (p < 0.01) between the different dimensions of the school climate.
Conclusion: The findings highlight the importance of creating a safe and inclusive school environment where empathy is encouraged, and effective measures are in place to prevent and address victimization.
1 Introduction
Similar to the family, the school is a primary socializing institution (Fraser, 1994; Peterson and Skiba, 2000; Skiba and Peterson, 2000). Its crucial role in the processes of socialization and identity construction is well established. It is at school that today's students and tomorrow's citizens internalize the standards and values specific to their social environment (Gayet, 1999; Darmon, 2001). Interacting with various stakeholders and elements at play, such as teachers, peers, school activities, and educational rules, shapes the student's experience and thus creates the school climate (Haynes et al., 1997; Juvonen, 2007). The school climate is defined as the “pattern of students', parents', and school personnel's experience of school life [that] reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (Cohen et al., 2009). Substantial research suggests that a positive, serene, and respectful school climate not only promotes academic success (Hoy et al., 2006; Wang and Degol, 2016) but also fosters socio-emotional growth and prevents risky behaviors (Steffgen et al., 2013; Espelage et al., 2014b). However, schools are not immune to deviant and delinquent events. Violence, aggression, and bullying are also possible within school settings. Repeated violence in schools often leads to significant problems for the victims, including disengagement, absenteeism, and depressive tendencies (Gini and Pozzoli, 2009; Lereya et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2019). Despite efforts to prevent victimization in the school environment through anti-bullying programs (Farrington and Ttofi, 2009; Evans et al., 2014; Yeager et al., 2015) that have proven highly effective in reducing victimization rates, it may be impossible to completely eradicate bullying in schools (Huitsing and Veenstra, 2012; Garandeau et al., 2018). In this regard, Salmivalli (2018) discussed the healthy context paradox, where the negative impact of victimization can be particularly severe. This paradox highlights that, in such contexts, victimization can become more psychologically damaging because it is less normative, leading to increased feelings of isolation and self-blame among victims (Bellmore et al., 2004; Nishina and Juvonen, 2005). This negatively impacts the overall school climate (Sourander et al., 2010; Bayar and Uçanok, 2012).
Some prior studies have focused on the school climate as a predictor of victimization incidents (Jones et al., 2008; Duffy and Nesdale, 2009; Turner et al., 2014; Schultze-Krumbholz et al., 2020; Montero-Carretero et al., 2021), while others have examined the impact of victimization on the school climate (Younes et al., 2011; Blaya, 2015; Debarbieux, 2015; Tamara et al., 2016; Konold et al., 2017; Poulin et al., 2018). Given the reciprocal influence between these two factors, we suggest that studying victimization as a social phenomenon that encompasses both individual and contextual factors is crucial (Kasen et al., 2004). On one hand, various studies have indicated that when students perceive a lack of structure, safety, belongingness, and wellbeing in their school environment, they are more likely to adopt the idea that they can deliberately and repeatedly harm others (Hinduja and Patchin, 2012). On the other hand, recent research reviews have shown an individual predisposition to violence and antisocial behaviors, sometimes explained by biological factors (Rutter et al., 1998; Susman and Finkelstein, 2001) or psychosocial factors (Loeber and Farrington, 1998; Farrington, 2000). Indeed, a low level of empathy among some young individuals may prevent them from understanding others' perspectives, thereby promoting their transformation into aggressors or engaging in acts of violence, which can be explained by a temporary “empathy anesthesia” (Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias, 2015; Zanna, 2015).
Understanding the different dimensions of victimization and its associated factors, notably, the level of empathy as a significant moderator, will help develop more effective interventions to prevent and reduce this problem and consequently improve the school climate (Bonell et al., 2013; Bear and Soltys, 2020). However, very few studies have taken into account psychosocial variables and individual characteristics to understand and explain the reality of the school climate (Lee, 2011; Sahin et al., 2019). Drawing inspiration from Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, which conceptualizes school as an essential element of the microsystem acting as a foundational framework influencing child development through reciprocal interactions with multiple nested and continually evolving ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, 1994). Therefore, this study aims to examine the impact of individual characteristics (empathy level, age, gender) and contextual experiences (victimization, bullying, etc.) on the school climate in Tunisian primary schools. By understanding these dynamics, we can identify the reality of the school climate in these institutions, comprehend the reciprocal influence among these different variables, and recognize the factors that promote a positive and inclusive school climate, as well as the obstacles to overcome to prevent victimization.
After exploring the context and the main issues of our study, we formulate the following hypotheses that will guide our investigation.
We assume that the perception of the school climate, as a multidimensional construct, is strongly mediated by individual psychological dispositions of students such as empathy levels on one hand, and experiences of victimization as a collective process on the other hand. More specifically, students with higher levels of empathy may be more sensitive to the social dynamics of their school environment. Thus, students who experience less victimization tend to perceive a more positive school climate, characterized by a sense of security, social support, and positive relationships with teachers and peers.
We presume that the presence of high levels of empathy can buffer the negative impact of victimization on school climate. Those who possess empathy may be better equipped to empathize with the experiences of victims, leading to increased support, solidarity, and efforts to address and prevent victimization within the school community.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants
We recruited children from public schools by sending a consent form to all parents. Only children whose parents provided written informed consent were included in the study. In total, we contacted 340 Tunisian families and successfully recruited 312 schoolchildren (158 boys and 154 girls), with a mean age of 10.75 ± 1.32 years. These participants were enrolled in the fourth to sixth grades of primary education and attended public schools in Gafsa, Tunisia. All participants belonged to an urban region. The duration of their enrollment in their respective schools was 4.44 ± 1.49 years, ranging from 1 to 7 years.
2.2 Measurement tools
2.2.1 School climate measurement
The School Climate Index (SCI) (Debarbieux and Fotinos, 2010) was used to measure the school climate from the students' perspective. This tool was translated and adapted into Arabic by Elhaddadi (2019). The scale consists of 12 items that measure various aspects of the school climate, including wellbeing (items 1 and 5). A sample item includes: “Are you doing well in your school?,” peer relationships (items 2 and 3) (example: “Do you have friends in your school?”), student-teacher relationships (items 4 and 6). A sample item includes: “Is there any aggression in the relationships between students and teachers?,” relationships with adults in the school (item 7), quality of learning (items 8 and 9), and feelings of safety within and around the school (items 10, 11, and 12). Each item has four response options, ranging from high satisfaction to low satisfaction on a 4-point Likert scale (from 1 to 4). The items were reverse-coded to obtain a scale ranging from 1 (indicating a poor school climate) to 4 (indicating a very good school climate).
2.2.2 Victimization
The victimization questionnaire used in this study was created by Debarbieux and Fotinos (2010) and translated into Arabic by Elhaddadi (2019). This self-reported questionnaire, consisting of 29 questions, aims to measure various forms of victimization or harassment to which students may be exposed in a school context during a reference period (e.g., since the beginning of the school year). These include physical violence, verbal violence, psychological violence, racial or regional violence, sexual violence, humiliation, harassment, and theft. Similarly, the victimization questionnaire helps identify the perpetrators of these victimizations (aggressors). Indeed, the majority of the questions first inquire about the frequency of the experienced incidents (number of times: on a Likert scale from 1 to 4). Then, they inquire about the actor of these acts of violence (a student, a group of students, a teacher...). A sample item includes: “Since the beginning of the school year, have you been called a bad name?”; “Since the beginning of the school year, either in this school or on the way to it, have you been physically assaulted?”
2.2.3 Empathy
We used the Basic Empathy Scale in Children (Bensalah et al., 2016), an 18-item scale specifically designed to assess three components of empathy in children: emotional contagion (equivalent of emotional empathy) (items 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, and 15). A sample item includes: “When I've been with a (female/male) friend who's sad, I feel sad,” cognitive empathy (items 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 18). A sample item includes: “I can often understand how people feel even when they don't tell me,” and emotional disconnection (items 5, 6, 11, 16, and 17). A sample item includes: “I don't feel anything when I see that one of my (female/male) friends is sad.” Children rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1–5). The alphas ranged from 0.79 to 0.88.
2.3 Data collection
All questionnaires were completed collectively in the classroom. The process involved the experimenter reading the instructions to the children on how to evaluate each item on the Likert scale. The experimenter was available to answer any questions the children might have had regarding the questionnaire items, for instance, if they didn't understand an item or if they thought two items were very similar. To facilitate the evaluation process, the Likert scale featured two smiling faces on the left (indicating agreement between characters) and one smiling face paired with a sad face on the right (indicating disagreement between characters). Responses to the paper-format questionnaires were entered into an Excel file where the data were appropriately coded for the various tools used.
2.4 Statistical analysis
We opted for IBM SPSS 27 to analyze the essential characteristics of both participants and items: mean, standard deviations and normality of the distribution. Any quantitative variable was described using means and standard deviations, and any qualitative variable was described using proportions or frequencies. To determine the internal consistency of the instruments used, we calculated Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Subsequently, to identify potential differences in the study variables based on participants' age and gender, Spearman correlation analyses and independent samples t-tests were conducted. Finally, binary logistic regression is employed to analyze the relationships between a binary variable (dependent variable: school climate) and a set of explanatory variables (independent variables). This method was used to elucidate the nature of the school climate based on other factors such as gender, tenure at the school, empathy, and victimization.
3 Results
3.1 Internal consistency of the school climate index and the basic empathy scale
In order to determine the internal consistency of the instruments used, we calculated Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega for each scale. McDonald's omega was 0.79 for the school climate index and 0.71 for the basic empathy scale. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 and 0.79, respectively. These results demonstrate good internal consistency for the school climate index and the Basic Empathy Scale.
3.2 The actual state of the school climate
The scores of the different dimensions of the school climate index were obtained by averaging the responses to the items for each component and all items collectively to calculate the overall score. The results indicate a predominantly positive perception of the school climate by the students, both for the overall score (2.67 ± 0.64) and the scores of the different components of the school climate (ranging from 2.61 to 2.86). The results also reveal statistically significant differences between girls and boys in their perception of the school experience. In general, girls seem to have a more positive perception of the overall school climate, displaying higher scores (2.86 ± 0.54) compared to boys' scores (2.45 ± 0.67). This difference is statistically significant according to the independent samples' t-test (t = −4.36; df = 281.74; p < 0.001). Regarding the underlying components of the school climate presented in Table 1, girls consistently have higher scores than boys. The observed mean differences are statistically significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that girls generally feel more comfortable, safe, and enjoy their interactions at school more than boys (see Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptive scores (mean ± standard deviation) for the different measured dimensions of school climate.
The results of this study show that nearly 81% of students expressed a positive evaluation by stating that the school climate was rather good (46.5%) or very good (34.3%), indicating a generally favorable atmosphere within the school and an overall positive school climate. However, 19% of students responded that the school climate was not very good, suggesting that some students do not feel well in their school environment and have a negative perception of the school climate in their institution (see Table 2). This negative perception of the school climate is more prevalent among boys (14.1%) than girls (5.1%). This difference is also statistically significant according to the chi-square test (χ2 = 26.67; df = 2; p < 0.001).
Table 2. Distribution of students according to their perception of the school climate.
3.3 Correlation between the different dimensions of the school climate
The relationships between the different dimensions of the school climate were tested by conducting correlation analyses on calculated scores. The results presented in Table 3 show positive and statistically significant correlations (p < 0.01) between the variables. The highest correlations were observed between the sense of wellbeing at school and both the sense of safety around the school (rs = 0.66; p < 0.01) and inside the school (rs = 0.56; p < 0.01). This implies that when the perceived level of safety increases among students, they tend to experience a higher sense of wellbeing at school.
Table 3. Correlation between the different measured dimensions of the school climate.
Furthermore, the relationship between students and teachers was positively correlated (rs = 0.45; p < 0.01). This suggests that students who have positive relationships with their peers are also more likely to have favorable relationships with their teachers. The quality of learning was more strongly correlated with the student-teacher relationship (rs = 0.42; p < 0.01) and to a lesser extent with the peer relationship (rs = 0.20; p < 0.01) (see Table 3).
3.4 Empathy level among students
The BES-C allowed us to assess the underlying components of empathy, namely cognitive empathy, emotional contagion, and emotional disconnection. The results revealed that students exhibited a high level of cognitive empathy (3.88 ± 0.94) and emotional contagion (3.44 ± 0.90). This suggests that overall, students demonstrated a strong ability to understand the emotions and perspectives of others. Similarly, they were relatively sensitive to the emotions of others and could be influenced or affected by them. Regarding emotional disconnection, the results showed a low level with a score of 1.77 ± 0.83.
The data analysis highlights interesting differences between genders. The independent samples' t-test shows statistically significant differences between girls and boys in terms of emotional contagion (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.98) and emotional disconnection (p < 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.33). Specifically, girls exhibited a significantly higher average (3.82 ± 0.72) than boys (3.02 ± 0.90) in terms of emotional contagion. On the contrary, for emotional disconnection, girls displayed lower scores compared to boys. However, no significant difference was observed between girls and boys in terms of cognitive empathy (p > 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.14).
3.5 Prevalence of victimization among students
The victimization questionnaire allowed us to determine the forms and levels of violence experienced by students in the school environment. Our results show that students, overall, experienced a degree of violence and victimization ranging from low to moderate (scores ranging from 1.10 to 2.09). However, the standard deviations are relatively high, indicating remarkable inter-individual differences. Gender differences are also notable, as boys are more likely than girls to experience different forms of violence (see Table 4).
Table 4. Descriptive scores (mean ± standard deviation) for the different measured dimensions of victimization.
Specifically, physical violence is the most frequently reported form of violence by boys, with a rate of 2.35 ± 1.06. This rate decreases to 1.85 ± 0.88 among girls. The independent samples t-test confirms the existence of a statistically significant difference between the two genders (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.51). Regarding verbal violence, boys' average scores (2.20 ± 1.10) were slightly higher compared to girls (1.87 ± 1.02). Additionally, the t-test yielded a statistically significant result (p < 0.01). The effect size, as indicated by Cohen's d, was found to be 0.30, suggesting a small but discernible difference between the two groups.
The results also show that for racial regional violence and psychological violence, the average scores were similar for all participants, indicating a similar presence of these undesirable behaviors among both girls and boys without any remarkable statistical difference (p > 0.05).
Bullying was less prevalent in this sample, with relatively low average scores (1.10 ± 0.39). However, the independent samples t-test showed differences between girls and boys (p = 0.04; Cohen's d = 0.23). Similarly, a statistically significant difference was observed between girls and boys regarding theft (p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.41), indicating that this type of victimization is equally abundant among boys and girls.
As for sexual violence, the percentages were higher among boys (14.1%) than girls (9.6%), suggesting a higher prevalence of these forms of violence among boys. This is confirmed by the chi-square test (p = 0.03). However, no statistical difference is observed between girls and boys regarding humiliation (p = 0.3 > 0.05).
3.6 Correlation between different forms of victimization
The correlation matrix between the different variables measuring forms of victimization allows us to better understand the relationships between these different forms of violence and their possible reciprocal influence. Our results show strong positive correlations between verbal violence and both physical violence and psychological violence, with correlation coefficients of 0.73 and 0.72, respectively. There is also a moderate correlation with theft (rs = 0.45; p < 0.01). Similarly, physical violence is strongly correlated with psychological violence (rs = 0.68, p < 0.01) and theft (rs = 0.6; p < 0.01). On the other hand, theft and bullying show weaker correlations with other forms of victimization (see Table 5).
Table 5. Correlation between the different measured dimensions of victimization.
3.7 Correlation between school climate, empathy, and victimization
The results obtained in this study highlight the complexity of the relationships between the various dimensions of the school climate, the forms of violence that students face in their institution, as well as the different underlying components of empathy (see Table 6).
Table 6. Correlation between the dimensions of: school climate, victimization, and empathy.
In particular, the victimization experienced by students is the variable that has the most influence on the school climate. There are strong negative correlations between physical violence and both the sense of wellbeing (r = −0.65), safety inside (r = −0.69), and around (r = −0.67) the school. Acts of theft seem to have similar impacts on these components of the school climate (Spearman correlation coefficients ranging from −0.66 to −0.58), indicating a strong association between theft and a decrease in the perceived sense of safety among students, as well as a decrease in wellbeing at school.
The correlations remain quite strong between verbal violence and both safety within (r = −0.5) and around (r = 0.53) the school on the one hand, and the sense of wellbeing in the school environment (r = 0.49; p < 0.001) on the other. This indicates that verbal violence is associated with a lower perception of safety and reduced wellbeing among students.
Thus, we found significant negative correlations between psychological violence and wellbeing (r = −0.61) as well as with safety inside (r = −0.51) and around the school (r = −0.59). This suggests that psychological violence has a detrimental effect on students' perception of safety and overall wellbeing.
The results of this study reveal a positive and statistically significant correlation between cognitive empathy and both the student-teacher relationship (r = 0.20; p < 0.001) and the quality of learning (r = 0.18; p < 0.001), suggesting that when students demonstrate cognitive empathy, they are more likely to have good relationships with their teachers and benefit from a better learning quality. Similarly, we observe positive and statistically significant correlations between emotional contagion and both safety within the school (r = 0.20; p < 0.001) and the sense of wellbeing among students (r = 0.25; p < 0.001).
However, there are negative and statistically significant correlations between emotional contagion on one hand and physical violence (r = −0.27; p < 0.001) and acts of theft (r = −0.26; p < 0.001) on the other hand. This suggests that emotional contagion may be associated with a decrease in violent behaviors and incidents of theft in the school environment.
3.8 Modeling determinants of school climate
3.8.1 Statistical model development
In order to interpret the scores correctly for the weighted averages calculated from the School Climate Index, we followed the method suggested by Pimentel (2010). This method involves creating intervals of averages to provide interpretations for the weighted average, ensuring that the difference in each interval has a uniform difference. The Table 7 presents the descriptive interpretation of the weighted average of items for 4-point Likert scales.
Table 7. Mean intervals for 4-point Likert scales (Pimentel, 2010).
The dependent variable (to be explained) in this study is a nominal variable with two classes: the school climate (CS). It takes the value 0 in case of a positive climate and the value 1 otherwise.
The independent variables (explanatory variables) consist of quantitative variables (age, seniority, cognitive empathy, emotional contagion, emotional disconnection, verbal violence, psychological violence, physical violence, racial violence, harassment, and theft) and two qualitative variables [(nominal: gender, sexual violence, humiliation) and (ordinal: educational level)].
The variables selected for logistic regression are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. List of variables derived from the backward method.
Thus, the statistical model can be written as:
Logit (Negative school climate) = −5.297 – 0.393 * Cognitive empathy + 1.126 * Harassment + 0.656 * Acts of theft+ 0.913 * Physical violence + 0.811 * Gender.
To study the importance of the selected factors, an analysis of odds ratios [Exp(B)] and their confidence intervals (CI) was conducted. The results show that harassment increases the risk of having a negative school climate 3-fold. Theft and physical violence increase this risk by approximately 2-fold. Additionally, the gender of the student has a significant influence on predicting a negative school climate. Specifically, being male is associated with a significant increase in risk of 2.25 (with a 95% confidence interval between 1.07 and 4.74) compared to females. On the other hand, cognitive empathy is a protective factor, decreasing the risk of having a negative school climate.
Based on the provided information (Table 9), the performance of the model can be evaluated using several key indicators. Sensitivity (Se), also known as the true positive rate, is calculated by dividing the number of true positives by the sum of true positives and false negatives. In this case, the sensitivity is 88.47%, indicating that the model correctly detects 88.47% of positive cases. Specificity (Sp), or the true negative rate, is obtained by dividing the number of true negatives by the sum of true negatives and false positives, resulting in a specificity of 67.44%. Finally, accuracy (ACC), which measures the proportion of correct classifications among all observations, is equal to 85.57%.
Table 9. Confusion matrix of the statistical model.
Furthermore, the current model has an Area Under the Curve (AUC) value of 0.88, indicating a very good discriminative ability. AUC is a commonly used measure to evaluate the performance of a classification model. An AUC score of 0.88 suggests that the model is able to effectively discriminate between categories or classes, providing a strong indication of its ability to make accurate predictions.
4 Discussion
The aim of our study is 2-fold. Firstly, it seeks to deepen our understanding of the reality of the school climate as perceived by students within Tunisian schools. Secondly, it strives to gain a better understanding of the complex relationships between different dimensions of the school climate, the forms of violence that students encounter in their institutions, and the underlying components of empathy. By identifying these dynamics, we will be able to better discern the factors that influence students' perception of the school climate.
4.1 School climate: a generally positive appreciation, divergent perceptions by gender
The results of this study show that the school climate is generally perceived positively by learners. Students feel that they are in an environment conducive to learning, where they feel supported and valued. Our findings align with those of Elhaddadi (2019) conducted in Morocco, a culturally similar context to Tunisia, where it was found that 79.3% of students aged 11 to 14 perceive the school climate positively in their institutions (Elhaddadi, 2019). Similarly, the results of our study corroborate the conclusions of numerous previous studies conducted in various countries, such as France (Younes et al., 2011; Debarbieux, 2015; Hubert, 2015), the United States (Shukla et al., 2016; Konold et al., 2018), Turkey (Sözer et al., 2018; Akyürek, 2024), and Spain (Montero-Carretero et al., 2021). These results suggest that the school climate is generally perceived positively by students, regardless of the sociocultural context. This reflects the universal efforts to improve the school climate; indeed, many countries implement policies and programs aimed at promoting safety, wellbeing, and inclusion, as well as efforts to reduce violence and bullying in schools to improve the overall school climate (Farrington and Ttofi, 2009; Yeager et al., 2015; Jordan and Hamilton, 2020).
Nevertheless, it is important to note that a significant proportion of schoolchildren express negative perceptions of the school climate. We suggest that it is crucial to pay special attention to these students in order to identify areas for improvement and promote a more positive and inclusive educational environment for all learners. Indeed, recent studies have found that in environments considered healthy and supportive, the most vulnerable subjects can experience even more psychological problems in these contexts than in less healthy contexts; this phenomenon is referred to as the “healthy context paradox” (Salmivalli, 2018; Huitsing et al., 2019; Pan et al., 2021; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2023). Although our study did not deeply explore the underlying mechanisms explaining the healthy context paradox, we aim to enrich future perspectives by encouraging further investigations in this area.
Additionally, our study also highlighted differences in the perception of the school climate based on gender. In fact, girls tend to perceive the school climate more positively than boys. These results are in line with several previous studies that have shown that the female gender is associated with a better perception of the school climate (Sinclair and Fraser, 2002; Koth et al., 2008; Debarbieux and Fotinos, 2010; Younes et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2014; Hubert, 2015; Elhaddadi, 2019). However, it should be noted that there are discrepancies between these results and those of a study conducted by Sortkær and Reimer (2018) on a sample from five Scandinavian countries, which stated that boys perceived the school climate more positively than girls. Similarly, other research does not always find this gender difference in the perception of the school climate (Warrington et al., 2000; Samuelsson and Samuelsson, 2016).
Regarding the reciprocal influence between different dimensions of the school climate, the results of this study provide interesting findings. Firstly, strong correlations were observed between wellbeing at school and safety both around and within the school premises. A higher perception of safety contributes to better student wellbeing, which aligns with previous research findings (Debarbieux, 2015; Hubert, 2015; Aldridge et al., 2016; Cornell et al., 2020). Similarly, the results of the present study demonstrate that the quality of learning is strongly influenced by the quality of relationships established between students and teachers. These findings are consistent with previous studies that highlight the importance of a positive teacher-student relationship in promoting better learning outcomes (Hamre and Pianta, 2001; Baker, 2006; Mameli et al., 2020).
4.2 Bidirectional influences of victimization and school climate
The results of this study also indicate the impact of victimization experiences, bullying, and theft on students' perception of the school climate in their institution. When faced with such negative experiences, students develop an overall negative perception of their school environment. According to ecological systems theory, school is an essential environment where a child's primary social interactions take place. These interactions with peers and adults at school play a crucial role in shaping a student's perception of their school environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2000; Rudasill et al., 2018). Indeed, power dynamics among peers, including bullying, discrimination, rumor-spreading, harassment, and violent behavior—whether physical or verbal—can have a profound and lasting impact on a student's wellbeing and development. These negative dynamics can influence not only the sense of safety and belonging but also academic engagement and school success. In short, all facets of the school climate can be affected (Arseneault, 2018; Garandeau and Salmivalli, 2019; Zhao and Li, 2022; Huang et al., 2023; Laninga-Wijnen et al., 2023). Thus, it is firmly established that a positive school climate contributes not only to better academic achievement, as numerous studies have demonstrated (Maxwell et al., 2017; Lenz et al., 2021; Zysberg and Schwabsky, 2021), but also to a significant reduction in violent and problematic behaviors within schools (Steffgen et al., 2013; Reaves et al., 2018).
In line with this, students' perceptions of safety inside and around the school were significantly and negatively associated with experiences of victimization. In other words, students who felt less safe at school were more likely to report more frequent incidents of victimization. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating that victimization increases as the school climate deteriorates (Brighi et al., 2013; Espelage et al., 2014a; Reaves et al., 2018; Dorio et al., 2020; Bradshaw et al., 2021). Furthermore, we found that experiences of victimization have negative repercussions on student wellbeing and peer relationships at school, replicating previous findings (Juvonen et al., 2000; Tsiantis et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2014). Victimized students are more likely to be isolated from their peers, feel excluded, and lack friends. As a result, victimization experiences reduce victims' opportunities to form friendships (Pan et al., 2021). They may also be more prone to being involved in conflicts or fights with other students. Studies indicate that young victims of bullying often tend to form friendships with other victims (Sentse et al., 2013; Lodder et al., 2016). Furthermore, victimization experiences can elicit unfavorable reactions from those around them, such as distancing and lack of support, leading to a more negative perception of the school environment by the victim (O'connor et al., 2020).
4.3 Empathy, a moderating variable of the school climate and victimization experiences
It was also expected and observed that a high level of empathy among learners contributes to the establishment of a positive school climate. Learners who display a high level of cognitive empathy are more likely to develop positive relationships with their teachers and have a better appreciation of the quality of learning in their institutions. Similarly, a positive association was found between emotional contagion and most specific elements of the school climate. These findings align with previous studies that have demonstrated the link between empathy and the school climate (Eisenberg, 2014; Acosta et al., 2019; Montero-Carretero et al., 2021).
Furthermore, the results of the present study demonstrate that emotional contagion was negatively correlated with physical violence, verbal aggression, and theft. This indicates that individuals who are more sensitive to the emotions of others are less likely to engage in violent behaviors, corroborating previous findings (Barlińska et al., 2013; Zych et al., 2019). However, no association was observed between different forms of victimization and other underlying components of empathy (cognitive empathy, emotional disconnection). It is possible that the sample size used in this study was insufficient. By increasing the sample size, it might have been possible to detect interactions between cognitive empathy, emotional disconnection, and victimization in the school context.
This study complements the existing literature by examining certain psychosocial moderators of the school climate. Victimization, as a collective social experience involving both the aggressor and the victim, and empathy, which is considered a personality trait, are the focal variables. We posit that it is difficult to determine the direction of influence between these variables with certainty (Debarbieux et al., 2012; Debarbieux, 2015). Intuitively, one might think that a higher victimization rate leads to a deteriorating school climate. However, it is also possible to reverse this reasoning by considering that a positive school climate reduces the risk of victimization. Moreover, it is likely that these variables influence each other mutually. This raises the need to interpret the results within an explanatory model that establishes clear causality between the variables. In this regard, we employed binary logistic regression to propose a model that confirms at least one direction of influence, whereby experiences of victimization, such as physical violence, theft, and bullying, are considered risk factors that create a negative perception of the school climate among students. However, cognitive empathy plays a protective role against the degradation of the school climate. It is important to note that this explanatory model does not argue for a strictly unidirectional relationship, as the impact of a positive school climate on students' experiences of victimization has not been explored by this model.
5 Conclusions
In conclusion, the results of our study confirm the observations of numerous authors regarding the complexity of the relationships between the school climate and moderating variables such as gender, experiences of victimization, and level of empathy among students. We found that the school climate is primarily affected by experiences of victimization. However, it is important to highlight that empathy plays a protective role in this context. Future research should therefore explore the relationship between empathy, victimization, and the school climate, taking into account different variables and specific contextual factors in Tunisia. In summary, our findings highlight the importance of creating a safe and inclusive school environment where empathy is encouraged, and effective measures are in place to prevent and address victimization. This will contribute to improving the overall school climate and promoting student wellbeing.
5.1 Implications of the findings
The practical implications of this study are numerous and aim to improve the school climate and student wellbeing in schools. Firstly, it is essential to implement training programs for teachers and school staff on conflict management, violence prevention, and empathy promotion, while also organizing workshops for students on these same themes. Additionally, the enforcement of strict anti-bullying policies, accompanied by confidential reporting mechanisms, is crucial. Moreover, improving physical security in and around schools through measures such as increased surveillance and the presence of security personnel contributes to a climate of safety. Finally, regular evaluations of the school climate and programs aimed at developing empathy from an early age, integrated into the school curriculum, are necessary to ensure an inclusive and positive school environment that fosters the wellbeing and academic success of all students.
6 Limitations and perspectives
This study has certain limitations. Although it highlights several potentially important variables for understanding the complex relationships between the school climate, experiences of victimization, and the level of empathy among students, there are some areas that should be addressed in future research. It is important for future studies to consider additional variables such as the sense of school belonging and the socio-economic characteristics of the environment to better identify the impact of victimization in the school setting. It would be opportune to expand the sample by including a larger number of participants, covering a wider age range, and representing populations from diverse backgrounds, both rural and urban. Furthermore, to deepen the understanding of this complex subject, it would be pertinent to adopt a longitudinal research design. Such a design would allow for the tracking of participants over an extended period, providing valuable insights into the evolution of school climate dynamics, victimization experiences, and levels of empathy over time. Additionally, it is important to highlight a significant limitation of the current contribution, namely the exclusive use of self-report instruments. While these tools can offer valuable perspectives on participants' subjective experiences, they are also subject to perception and reporting biases. To address this limitation, it would be beneficial to incorporate complementary data collection methods, such as direct observations or in-depth interviews. Incorporating these suggestions into future research would strengthen the validity and reliability of the findings (Dzakadzie and Quansah, 2023).
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Tunisian Research Laboratory “Optimization of Sports Performance,” National Center for Medicine and Sports Science (CNMSS) (approval number LR09SEP01). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin. Written informed consent was obtained from the minor(s)' legal guardian/next of kin for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
IC: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MJ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
We are extremely grateful to all the participants who took part in this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Phillips, A., and Wilks, A. (2019). Understanding the relationship between perceived school climate and bullying: a mediator analysis. J. Sch. Violence 18, 200–215. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2018.1453820
Akyürek, M. I. (2024). Examining the relationship between school climate and happiness according to primary school students' perceptions. Education 52, 328–341. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2022.2089711
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Fozdar, F., Ala'i, K., Earnest, J., and Afari, E. (2016). Students' perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resilience and identity. Impr. Schools 19, 5–26. doi: 10.1177/1365480215612616
Arseneault, L. (2018). Annual research review: the persistent and pervasive impact of being bullied in childhood and adolescence: implications for policy and practice. J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. 59, 405–421. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12841
Baker, J. A. (2006). Contributions of teacher–child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. J. Sch. Psychol. 44, 211–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.002
Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., and Winiewski, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of the communication medium, form of violence, and empathy. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23, 37–51. doi: 10.1002/casp.2137
Bayar, Y., and Uçanok, Z. (2012). School social climate and generalized peer perception in traditional and cyberbullying status. Educ. Sci. 12, 2352–2358.
Bear, G. G., and Soltys, A. (2020). Improving School Climate: Practical Strategies to Reduce Behavior Problems and Promote Social and Emotional Learning. New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. doi: 10.4324/9781351170482
Bellmore, A. D., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., and Juvonen, J. (2004). Beyond the individual: the impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims' adjustment. Dev. Psychol. 40:1159. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1159
Bensalah, L., Stefaniak, N., Carre, A., and Besche-Richard, C. (2016). The Basic Empathy Scale adapted to French middle childhood: Structure and development of empathy. Behav. Res. Methods 48, 1410–1420. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0650-8
Blaya, C. (2015). Etude du lien entre cyberviolence et climat scolaire: enquête auprès des collégiens d'Ile de France. Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail. doi: 10.4000/dse.815
Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Jamal, F., Wells, H., Harden, A., Murphy, S., et al. (2013). Theories of how the school environment impacts on student health: systematic review and synthesis. Health Place 24, 242–249. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.09.014
Bradshaw, C. P., Cohen, J., Espelage, D. L., and Nation, M. (2021). Addressing school safety through comprehensive school climate approaches. School Psych. Rev. 50, 221–236. doi: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1926321
Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., Galli, S., and Genta, M. L. (2013). “Predictors of victimisation across direct bullying, indirect bullying and cyberbullying,” in Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties Associated with Bullying and Cyberbullying (Routledge), 147–160.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of childhood. Child Dev. 45, 1–5. doi: 10.2307/1127743
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2000). Ecological Systems Theory. New York: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10518-046
Cohen, J., Mccabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., and Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teach. Coll. Rec. 111, 180–213. doi: 10.1177/016146810911100108
Cornell, D. G., Mayer, M. J., and Sulkowski, M. L. (2020). History and future of school safety research. School Psych. Rev. 50, 143–157. doi: 10.1080/2372966X.2020.1857212
Darmon, M. (2001). La socialisation, entre famille et école. Observation d'une classe de première année de maternelle. Soc. Représent. 1, 515–538. doi: 10.3917/sr.011.0515
Debarbieux, E., Anton, N., Astor, R., Benbenishty, R., Bisson-Vaivre, C., Cohen, J., et al. (2012). Le ≪Climat scolaire≫: définition, effets et conditions d'amélioration. Rapport au Comité scientifique de la Direction de l'enseignement scolaire, Ministère de l'éducation nationale. MEN-DGESCO/Observatoire International de la Violence à l'École.
Debarbieux, E., and Fotinos, G. (2010). “Violence et climat scolaire dans les établissements du second degré en France,” in Une enquete quantitative auprès des personnels de direction des lycées et collèges. Bordeaux, Universite Victor Segalen Bordeaux, 2.
Dorio, N. B., Clark, K. N., Demaray, M. K., and Doll, E. M. (2020). School climate counts: A longitudinal analysis of school climate and middle school bullying behaviors. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2, 292–308. doi: 10.1007/s42380-019-00038-2
Duffy, A. L., and Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children's bullying behavior. Soc. Dev. 18, 121–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00484.x
Dzakadzie, Y., and Quansah, F. (2023). Modeling unit non-response and validity of online teaching evaluation in higher education using generalizability theory approach. Front. Psychol. 14:1202896. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1202896
Eisenberg, N. (2014). Altruistic Emotion, Cognition, and Behavior (PLE: Emotion). London: Psychology Press. doi: 10.4324/9781315746135
Elhaddadi, M. (2019). Victimation et perception du climat scolaire: L'influence du degré de conformisme des élèves de l'enseignement secondaire public aux normes et valeurs de la société marocaine. Bordeaux.
Espelage, D. L., Low, S. K., and Jimerson, S. R. (2014a). Understanding school climate, aggression, peer victimization, and bully perpetration: contemporary science, practice, and policy. School Psychol. Quart. 29:233. doi: 10.1037/spq0000090
Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., and Low, S. K. (2014b). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychol. Quart. 29, 287. doi: 10.1037/spq0000072
Evans, C. B. R., Fraser, M. W., and Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: a systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 19, 532–544. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004
Farrington, D. P. (2000). Psychosocial predictors of adult antisocial personality and adult convictions. Behav. Sci. Law 18, 605–622. doi: 10.1002/1099-0798(200010)18:5<605::AID-BSL406>3.0.CO;2-0
Farrington, D. P., and Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell System. Rev. 5, i−148. doi: 10.4073/csr.2009.6
Fraser, N. (1994). After the family wage: gender equity and the welfare state. Polit. Theory 22, 591–618. doi: 10.1177/0090591794022004003
Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., and Salmivalli, C. (2018). Decreases in the proportion of bullying victims in the classroom: effects on the adjustment of remaining victims. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 42, 64–72. doi: 10.1177/0165025416667492
Garandeau, C. F., and Salmivalli, C. (2019). Can healthier contexts be harmful? A new perspective on the plight of victims of bullying. Child Dev. Perspect. 13, 147–152. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12331
Gayet, D. (1999). Ecole et socialisation: le profil social des écoliers de 8 à 12 ans. École Socialis. 21, 1–336.
Gini, G., and Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 123, 1059–1065. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1215
Hamre, B. K., and Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Dev. 72, 625–638. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Haynes, N. M., Emmons, C., and Ben-Avie, M. (1997). School climate as a factor in student adjustment and achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult. 8, 321–329. doi: 10.1207/s1532768xjepc0803_4
Hinduja, S., and Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying: neither an epidemic nor a rarity. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 9, 539–543. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.706448
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., and Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: a force for student achievement. Am. Educ. Res. J. 43, 425–446. doi: 10.3102/00028312043003425
Huang, Y., Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., and Hong, J. S. (2019). A meta-analytic review of school-based anti-bullying programs with a parent component. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 1, 32–44. doi: 10.1007/s42380-018-0002-1
Huang, Y., Gan, X., Jin, X., Wei, Z., Cao, Y., and Ke, H. (2023). The healthy context paradox of bullying victimization and academic adjustment among Chinese adolescents: a moderated mediation model. PLoS ONE18:e0290452. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290452
Huitsing, G., Lodder, G. M. A., Oldenburg, B., Schacter, H. L., Salmivalli, C., Juvonen, J., et al. (2019). The healthy context paradox: victims' adjustment during an anti-bullying intervention. J. Child Fam. Stud. 28, 2499–2509. doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1194-1
Huitsing, G., and Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggress. Behav. 38, 494–509. doi: 10.1002/ab.21438
Jones, S. E., Haslam, S. A., York, L., and Ryan, M. K. (2008). Rotten apple or rotten barrel? Social identity and children's responses to bullying. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 26, 117–132. doi: 10.1348/026151007X200385
Jordan, P. W., and Hamilton, L. S. (2020). “Walking a fine line: School climate surveys in state ESSA plans,” in FutureEd. School Climate Measurement.
Juvonen, J. (2007). Reforming middle schools: focus on continuity, social connectedness, and engagement. Educ. Psychol. 42, 197–208. doi: 10.1080/00461520701621046
Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., and Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. J. Educ. Psychol. 92:349. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.92.2.349
Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., and Johnson, J. G. (2004). “The effects of school climate on changes in aggressive and other behaviors related to bullying,” in Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (Routledge), 187–210.
Konold, T., Cornell, D., Jia, Y., and Malone, M. (2018). School climate, student engagement, and academic achievement: A latent variable, multilevel multi-informant examination. Aera Open 4:2332858418815661. doi: 10.1177/2332858418815661
Konold, T., Cornell, D., Shukla, K., and Huang, F. (2017). Racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of school climate and its association with student engagement and peer aggression. J. Youth Adolesc. 46, 1289–1303. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0576-1
Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., and Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: the effect of classroom-level factors. J. Educ. Psychol. 100:96. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Yanagida, T., Garandeau, C. F., Malamut, S. T., Veenstra, R., and Salmivalli, C. (2023). Is there really a healthy context paradox for victims of bullying? A longitudinal test of bidirectional within-and between-person associations between victimization and psychological problems. Dev. Psychopathol. 21, 1–15. doi: 10.1017/S0954579423001384
Lee, C.-H. (2011). An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle school students in the United States. J. Interper. Viol. 26, 1664–1693. doi: 10.1177/0886260510370591
Lenz, A. S., Rocha, L., and Aras, Y. (2021). Measuring school climate: a systematic review of initial development and validation studies. Int. J. Advanc. Counsel. 43, 48–62. doi: 10.1007/s10447-020-09415-9
Lereya, S. T., Copeland, W. E., Zammit, S., and Wolke, D. (2015). Bully/victims: a longitudinal, population-based cohort study of their mental health. Eur. Child Adol. Psychiat. 24, 1461–1471. doi: 10.1007/s00787-015-0705-5
Lodder, G. M., Scholte, R. H., Cillessen, A. H., and Giletta, M. (2016). Bully victimization: Selection and influence within adolescent friendship networks and cliques. J. Youth Adolesc. 45, 132–144. doi: 10.1007/s10964-015-0343-8
Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. New York: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781452243740
Mameli, C., Caricati, L., and Molinari, L. (2020). That's not fair! The effects of teacher justice and academic achievement on Self and Other's resistant agency. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 90, 933–947. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12335
Maxwell, S., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., and Bromhead, D. (2017). The impact of school climate and school identification on academic achievement: multilevel modeling with student and teacher data. Front. Psychol. 8:2069. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02069
Mitsopoulou, E., and Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: a meta-analytic approach. Aggress. Violent Behav. 21, 61–72. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007
Montero-Carretero, C., Pastor, D., Santos-Rosa, F. J., and Cervell,ó, E. (2021). School climate, moral disengagement and, empathy as predictors of bullying in adolescents. Front. Psychol. 12:656775. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.656775
Nishina, A., and Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Dev. 76, 435–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00855.x
O'connor, K. E., Hitti, S. A., Thompson, E. L., Farrell, A. D., and Sullivan, T. N. (2020). Perceptions of school climate among subgroups of aggressive and victimized youth. School Ment. Health 12, 169–181. doi: 10.1007/s12310-019-09343-z
Pan, B., Li, T., Ji, L., Malamut, S., Zhang, W., and Salmivalli, C. (2021). Why does classroom-level victimization moderate the association between victimization and depressive symptoms? The “Healthy Context Paradox” and two explanations. Child Dev. 92, 1836–1854. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13624
Peterson, R. L., and Skiba, R. (2000). Creating school climates that prevent school violence. Prev. School Fail. 44, 122–129. doi: 10.1080/10459880009599794
Pimentel, J. L. (2010). A note on the usage of Likert Scaling for research data analysis. USM RD J. 18, 109–112.
Poulin, R., Beaumont, C., Blaya, C., and Frenette, É. (2018). “La perception du climat scolaire des élèves victimisés par leurs pairs à la fin du secondaire. climat scolaire et victimisation à la fin du secondaire,” in L'orientation scolaire et professionnelle, 521–546. doi: 10.4000/osp.8665
Reaves, S., Mcmahon, S. D., Duffy, S. N., and Ruiz, L. (2018). The test of time: a meta-analytic review of the relation between school climate and problem behavior. Aggress. Violent Behav. 39, 100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.01.006
Rudasill K. M. Snyder K. E. Levinson H. and L. Adelson J. (2018). Systems view of school climate: a theoretical framework for research. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 35–60. doi: 10.1007/s10648-017-9401-y
Rutter, M., Giller, H., and Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial Behavior by Young People: A Major New Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sahin, F., Sönmez, E., and Tabak, B.Y. (2019). A variable predicting school climate: the personality traits of school principals. Başkent Univ. J. Educ. 6, 202–212.
Salmivalli, C. (2018). Peer victimization and adjustment in young adulthood: commentary on the special section. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 46, 67–72. doi: 10.1007/s10802-017-0372-8
Samuelsson, M., and Samuelsson, J. (2016). Gender differences in boys' and girls' perception of teaching and learning mathematics. Open Rev. Educ. Res. 3, 18–34. doi: 10.1080/23265507.2015.1127770
Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Zagorscak, P., Hess, M., and Scheithauer, H. (2020). The influence of school climate and empathy on cyberbystanders' intention to assist or defend in cyberbullying. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2, 16–28. doi: 10.1007/s42380-019-00040-8
Sentse, M., Dijkstra, J. K., Salmivalli, C., and Cillessen, A. H. (2013). The dynamics of friendships and victimization in adolescence: a longitudinal social network perspective. Aggress. Behav. 39, 229–238. doi: 10.1002/ab.21469
Shukla, K., Konold, T., and Cornell, D. (2016). Profiles of student perceptions of school climate: relations with risk behaviors and academic outcomes. Am. J. Community Psychol. 57, 291–307. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12044
Sinclair, B. B., and Fraser, B. J. (2002). Changing classroom environments in urban middle schools. Learn. Environ. Res. 5, 301–328. doi: 10.1023/A:1021976307020
Skiba, R. J., and Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Except. Child. 66, 335–346. doi: 10.1177/001440290006600305
Sortkær, B., and Reimer, D. (2018). Classroom disciplinary climate of schools and gender – evidence from the Nordic countries. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 29, 511–528. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1460382
Sourander, A., Klomek, A. B., Ikonen, M., Lindroos, J., Luntamo, T., Koskelainen, M., et al. (2010). Psychosocial risk factors associated with cyberbullying among adolescents: Amazon.com population-based study. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 67, 720–728. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.79
Sözer, M. A., Yilmaz, F., and Ayten, B. K. (2018). The validity and reliability study of the abbreviated school climate survey's Turkish version for elementary schools. Inonu Univ. J. Grad. School Educ. 5, 31–47. doi: 10.29129/inujgse.408908
Steffgen, G., Recchia, S., and Viechtbauer, W. (2013). The link between school climate and violence in school: a meta-analytic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 18, 300–309. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.12.001
Susman, E. J., and Finkelstein, J. W. (2001). “Biology, development, and dangerousness,” in Clinical assessment of dangerousness: Empirical contributions, eds. G.-F. Pinard and L. Pagani (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 23–46. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511500015.003
Tamara, H., Juillard, M., and Murat, F. (2016). “Chapitre 1. Mesurer la violence en milieu scolaire au niveau national: outils et résultats,” in L'école face à la violence (Paris: Armand Colin), 15–31.
Tsiantis, A. C. J., Beratis, I. N., Syngelaki, E. M., Stefanakou, A., Asimopoulos, C., Sideridis, G. D., et al. (2013). The effects of a clinical prevention program on bullying, victimization, and attitudes toward school of elementary school students. Behav. Disord. 38, 243–257. doi: 10.1177/019874291303800406
Turner, I., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., and Bromhead, D. (2014). Well-being, school climate, and the social identity process: a latent growth model study of bullying perpetration and peer victimization. School Psychol. Quart. 29:320. doi: 10.1037/spq0000074
Wang, M.-T., and Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: a review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 315–352. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1
Wang, W., Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H. L., Mcdougall, P., Krygsman, A., Smith, D., et al. (2014). School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: results from a multi-informant study. Sch. Psychol. Q. 29, 360–377. doi: 10.1037/spq0000084
Warrington, M., Younger, M., and Williams, J. (2000). Student attitudes, image and the gender gap. Br. Educ. Res. J. 26, 393–407. doi: 10.1080/01411920050030914
Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., and Espelage, D. L. (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: theory and a three-level meta-analysis. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 37, 36–51. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005
Younes, N., Debarbieux, E., and Jourdan, D. (2011). “Le climat scolaire à l'école primaire: étude de l'influence des variables de milieu sur sa perception par les élèves de 6 à 8 ans,” in International Journal on violence and schools. Available online at: http://www.ijvs.org/files/Revue-12/05-Younes-IJVS-12.pdf (accessed December 16, 2023).
Zanna, O. (2015). Le corps dans la relation aux autres. Pour une éducation à l'empathie. Rennes (Presses universitaires de). doi: 10.4000/books.pur.69534
Zhao, Q., and Li, C. (2022). Victimized adolescents' aggression in cliques with different victimization norms: the healthy context paradox or the peer contagion hypothesis? J. Sch. Psychol. 92, 66–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2022.03.001
Zych, I., Farrington, D. P., and Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Protective factors against bullying and cyberbullying: a systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggress. Violent Behav. 45, 4–19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008
Keywords: school climate, empathy, victimization, wellbeing, students
Citation: Chokri I and Jarraya M (2024) Understanding the complex interplay of victimization experiences, empathy and school climate in Tunisian schools. Front. Educ. 9:1399876. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1399876
Received: 12 March 2024; Accepted: 20 June 2024;
Published: 09 July 2024.
Edited by:
Jonathan Glazzard, University of Hull, United KingdomReviewed by:
Carmen Belacchi, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, ItalyMark Vicars, Victoria University, Australia
Copyright © 2024 Chokri and Jarraya. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Imed Chokri, Chokri.imed@ISSEPGF.u-gafsa.tn