school violence a qualitative case study

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Empirical study article, attitudes towards school violence based on aporophobia. a qualitative study.

• 1 Department of Socio-Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
• 2 Applied Psychology Service, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
• 3 Department of Psychology, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
• 4 Department of Psychiatry and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

School violence is a worldwide problem. Among the variables that influence its frequency, perceived socioeconomic status seems to be associated with a higher risk of exposure to violence and attitudes toward violence. The aim of this study is to examine attitudes toward violence based on socioeconomic discrimination (aporophobia) and its relationship with violent behaviors in the school context. For this purpose, 96 Spanish students of Primary Education (PE) and Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE) participated in this qualitative study through focus groups and thematic analysis. The results identified three types of attitudes toward violence directed toward those who are perceived as members of a lower status. The attitudes observed are related to self-esteem or feeling better, legitimization and socialization.

Introduction

Whether inside the school classroom or outside of it, in the surroundings of the school or even online, school violence remains a worldwide problem of difficult solution ( UNESCO, 2017 ). Several variables influence the occurrence of this phenomenon, among which impulsivity, empathy, attitudes toward violence, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, substance abuse or parenting styles, among others, have been studied ( Varela et al., 2018 ; Álvarez-García et al., 2018 ; Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2019 ). In this regard, attitudes toward violence have been shown to be a variable closely related to school violence, as well as to the improvement of school climate in general terms ( Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2016 ; Fraguas et al., 2021 ). This attitude-violent behavior relationship in the school context has enough evidence that attitudes can be considered a predictor of behavior ( Kraus, 1995 ; Pina et al., 2022 ).

Schools are not immune to the cultural influence of the context. Along these lines, several factors have been considered risk factors for being a victim of school violence. For example, the stigma-based framework of violence ( Earnshaw et al., 2018 ) frames the complexities of violent behaviors in social stigmas. These stigmas cause the social devaluation of certain characteristics or identities, structural biases that are reproduced in policy, law, or cultural beliefs. In this way, stigmas, often influenced by social dominance orientation, stereotypes and prejudices, have an impact on interpersonal interactions ( Ho et al., 2012 ; Malecki et al., 2020 ). Thus, social, structural (e.g., school or family) and individual characteristics of youth interact to create conditions conducive or not conducive to bullying behaviors, especially when a traditionally stigmatized characteristic is at stake ( Malecki et al., 2020 ). In this framework, several variables such as poverty level, racial or ethnic identity, being part of the LGBTQ + community, or disability status have been studied ( Malecki et al., 2020 ).

Within the group of variables that influence the interpersonal interactions of minors, the socioeconomic status (SES) perceived by the group is a variable of interest. SES refers to the position a person occupies in the structure of society due to social or economic factors ( Galobardes et al., 2006a ). Some variables related to family socioeconomic status are the education of both parents (both as a quantitative measure, where the more years of study, the better the socioeconomic status; and as a categorical measure, focused on specific achievements, where the more successful the studies, the better the socioeconomic status), parental occupation (e.g., parental unemployment is a strong indicator of low socioeconomic status), household income (e.g., family affluence, annual household income and combined income of both parents) and household conditions (e.g., overcrowding, considered if the threshold of two or more persons per room is exceeded; and household conditions, considered by the presence of humidity and condensation, construction materials, rooms of the dwelling) ( Galobardes et al., 2006a , b ).

In general terms, a higher incidence of bullying problems has been observed in schools in disadvantaged areas ( Olweus, 1993 ; Woods and Wolke, 2004 ; Fu et al., 2013 ), with an Odds Ratio of 0.46 ( Woods and Wolke, 2004 ). Of all the family SES indicators, a strong association is reported between low parental educational level and child victimization ( Jansen et al., 2012 ). Similarly, there seems to be a relationship between the SES and the role assumed in a situation of violence ( Tippett and Wolke, 2014 ). Throughout the literature, it is observed that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may act as perpetrators, bullying their peers more often, or be more vulnerable to victimization ( Alikasifoglu et al., 2007 ; Due et al., 2009a , b ; Wolke et al., 2010 ; Jansen et al., 2011 ). Specifically, in the meta-analysis conducted by Tippett and Wolke (2014) concluded that being a victim of bullying was positively associated with low family socioeconomic status, highlighting the influence of factors such as economic disadvantage ( Bowes et al., 2009 ; Lumeng et al., 2010 ) and poverty ( Glew et al., 2005 ). Specifically, it appears that coming from a lower socioeconomic background or being unable to afford the goods or resources available to other peers may expose children to peer victimization ( Tippett and Wolke, 2014 ).

In general terms, the data suggest that children living in low-income households should make a greater effort to avoid becoming involved in violence, although there are discrepancies in the literature in this regard. An example of this is reflected in the qualitative studies by Daly and Leonard (2002 , p. 12) and Davis and Ridge (1997 , p. 64). For some of the minors in these studies, not following or not being able to follow fashion trends was met with verbal abuse, teasing, or bullying from others. Likewise, economic disparity between schools is associated with an increased likelihood of being exposed to bullying ( Due et al., 2009b ). Higher rates of school violence have been observed in countries where social inequality is greater ( Due et al., 2009b ; Elgar et al., 2009 ). For this reason, it has been pointed out that the relationship between family socioeconomic status and bullying might be better understood at the societal level than at the individual level ( Tippett and Wolke, 2014 ).

From this social perspective, discrimination against those members of the community who have fewer resources has been associated with the term aporophobia, defined for the first time in our context by Cortina (1995) . Although initially this term did not appear in Spanish language dictionaries ( Cortina, 2000 ; Martínez, 2002 ), it is now accepted by the Royal Spanish Academy, who defines it as “exaggerated aversion to poor or disadvantaged people” ( Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ). Thus, aporophobia refers to the feeling of rejection or fear of the poor, the underprivileged, those who lack outlets, means or resources, thus blaming them for the situation in which they find themselves ( Andrade, 2008 ). Likewise, such discomfort seems to be an induced and provoked sensation that is learned and disseminated through alarmist and sensationalist stories that show poor people as responsible for crime and as an alleged threat to the stability of the socioeconomic system ( Martínez, 2002 ).

The roots of aporophobic thinking are found in Smith’s (1976) Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith makes use of the concept of “sympathy” to explain why poor people arouse negative emotions. The observer determines the sympathy or antipathy response to another person’s emotions by allowing the observer to imagine oneself in the other’s position in an effort to understand why one is in the same situation as the other person and, thus, understand why one feels a certain way which, from an economic point of view, translates into feeling greater sympathy for rich people because of their greater association with happiness ( Bakke, 2011 ). In turn, the observer feels discomfort at the pain of others, so they sympathize to some extent ( Smith, 1976 ). For this reason, if someone who is poor asks for more compassion than the impartial spectator justifies, the observer ends up resenting the poor person and inducing them to enter fully into their hardship being able to justify this in the non-dissimulation of their painful situations, making them appear pathetic and despicable to others ( Smith, 1976 ; Bakke, 2011 ). Following Smith’s (1976) proposal, poor people are perceived as useless, lazy, lacking talent, let alone the ability to earn a living. In cases of extreme poverty or destitution, the very situation of hunger, physical pain, and emotional depression of the poor person is naturally repulsive to the observer and, therefore, compassionately impenetrable. Conversely, the poor person come to resent the observer for not considering the full reality of their situation. According to this author, the fear and disgust felt toward the poor person and the admiration for the rich and powerful one would be human in nature, in a way that it could not be manipulated or altered, since it is not only a way of preserving our moral sentiments, but is also necessary to establish and maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society.

Based on the conceptualization of the phenomenon by Smith (1976) , Cortina (2000) , Martínez (2002) , and Bakke (2011) , different psychological categories such as attitudes, beliefs and behaviors are associated with the concept of aporophobia ( Comim et al., 2020 ). Likewise, the concept of aporophobia is closely related to other widely studied social problems such as gender-based violence, hate crimes, racism, ethnic discrimination, xenophobia, and homophobia, with SES inequality being the common factor that could serve as a link between many of these ( Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ). According to some authors, such discriminatory behaviors are mainly explained by perceived SES inequalities, regardless of other conditions such as race, ethnicity, religion, politics, or sexual orientation ( Cortina, 1996 ; Andrade, 2008 ; p. 70; Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ). In this regard, poverty would be the common and precipitating factor of this type of social problems, understanding poverty as deprivation and inequality attributed to a sector ( Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ). From the aporophobic logic, “poor” people have nothing to offer, making their presence uncomfortable because it reminds us that situations of homelessness are, to some extent, a responsibility of people who are well off and this, possibly, is wanted to be forgotten ( Andrade, 2008 ). Thus, it is not usually taken into consideration that “poor” people are not only “poor” because of their insufficient purchasing power of goods, but that they are also immersed within a complex network of socioeconomic, environmental and cultural conditions defined by the society to which they belong ( Ardiles, 2008 ).

Under this prism, aporophobia would translate into violent behaviors with a high prevalence. In this sense, the Network of Support for Social and Labor Integration ( RAIS fundación, 2017 ) indicates that, in the specific case of Spain, 47% of people in poverty have been victims of at least one hate crime due to aporophobia. Aporophobia as a psychological and social pathology has not been studied in depth despite the fact that its definition and the arguments that define it are quite clear ( Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ). This lack of evidence carries over to the school context. Although poverty has been studied as a risk factor in school violence, there does not seem to be any study that delves into the problem from the point of view of aporophobia in the school context, especially through qualitative methodology. This vision is necessary since the interest is not to know the relationship between SES and aggressive behaviors and/or victimization, but from the point of view of aporophobia as a social pathology, the interest of study are the attitudes and violent behaviors directed toward those members of the community who are perceived as “poor” or of a lower status. Along these lines, qualitative indicators will vary according to the particular social context where the study of the same is conducted ( Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ). Under this premise, the objectives of this study are, on the one hand, to identify attitudes toward school violence based on aporophobic discrimination using qualitative techniques in schoolchildren. In addition, behaviors associated with these attitudes will be explored. On the other hand, a theoretical approach to the structure and dynamics that seem to maintain and justify these attitudes in the school context is intended.

Participant recruitment

For this study, a qualitative design was used with participants from three schools in southeastern Spain, two of Primary Education (PE) and one of them of Compulsory Secondary Education (CSE). The socioeconomic status of the areas of the schools included in this study is medium. The schools were selected incidentally. The census of these schools was high ( M = 663.33, SD = 458.29, range between 240 and 1,150). From among the students at the school, those enrolled between the fourth and sixth year of PE (9–11 years) and first and fourth year of CSE (12–16 years) were invited to participate. The target sample size was 90–120 students, obtaining a final sample of 96 participants. The mean age of the interviewees was 11.35 (SD = 2.09) with an age range between 9 and 16 years old. A total of 95.8% were born in Spain and 83.5% had a remarkable or outstanding academic performance. A large number of students had a high school diploma. A large number of students had at least one sibling (82.3%) and lived with both parents (86.5%). Regarding the educational level of the parents, in both cases it was more common for them to have basic or compulsory studies (35.4 and 35.4%). No other measures of socioeconomic level were taken because of the difficulties that children have in estimating these indicators ( Wardle et al., 2002 ). More information on the participants is available in the study by Pina et al. (2021a) .

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the authors’ university (ID: 2317/2019) and followed the recommendations of the COREQ guide for focus groups ( Tong et al., 2007 ). The selection of schools for the study was incidental, excluding those that, according to the data from the Observatory of School Coexistence of the Autonomous Community, had extremely low or high rates of school violence. Of the four schools initially invited, three finally participated, since one of them was unable to participate for reasons related to COVID-19.

All the students, teachers and parents/legal guardians belonging to the classrooms selected for the study were provided with written information together with informed consents about the objectives of the study. In these documents, they were asked to accept both the audio recordings in the focus groups and the publication of the data obtained in subsequent scientific publications.

For the creation of the groups, a maximum of four participants per classroom were randomly selected, with the common nexus of the groups being the school year. A total of 12 focus groups were conducted, with an average of eight participants and lasting between 41.5 and 54.47 min ( M = 48.85, SD = 4.89). Of all the minors invited, only 10 of them declined to participate in the research.

The inclusion criteria for being part of these groups were as follows: (a) being enrolled in one of the selected schools, (b) being between 9 and 16 years old, and (c) speaking and understanding Spanish. Meanwhile, the exclusion criteria were: (a) being enrolled in a grade lower than fourth year of PE or higher than fourth year of CSE, (b) refusing to participate or not submitting the informed consent signed by the minor and parents/guardians, (c) showing some type of cognitive limitation that prevented participation in the study, and (d) not attending the school on the day the focus groups were conducted.

All the group interviews were conducted during school hours. A member of the school management team accompanied the children from their classroom to a space specially prepared for the focus groups. Only the children and the interviewers were present in these spaces. Before starting the recording, the participants were again asked for their explicit consent, this time verbally. In addition, they were reminded that the audio recording would be destroyed after transcription. In the text file, any data provided that could identify the participant or another person was replaced by a code.

Data collection

For the exploration of aporophobia, focus group discussions were used following the methodology proposed by Krueger (1991) . These focus groups involve a data collection technique, of a qualitative nature employed on numerous occasions in research (e.g., Edwards et al., 2020 ; Miranda Miranda et al., 2020 ; Pina et al., 2021b ). For their formation, people with common characteristics that are relevant to the research topic are grouped together, in our case, minors from the same school and course. Prior to conducting the focus groups, a script was created in which general statements related to the topic of the study were generated. It was decided to opt for the study of attitudes toward aporophobia in the school context given the scarcity of qualitative research published with this approach. This script was previously tested on a pilot group of students not contemplated in the results of the study.

The focus groups were conducted by the first author with the assistance of the other authors. This first author is a male with extensive training and experience in focus groups, having published several studies using this methodology. There was no previous relationship with the participants in the groups. Before starting with the recordings, the interviewer spent between 5- and 10-min generating rapport with the participants, with questions outside the object of study and of trivial subject matter. Once this was done, about the objectives, functions and importance of the study of coexistence in the academic environment were explained.

The interviewer tried to remain neutral throughout the process, remaining free of bias, assumptions, or displays of interest in the participants’ responses. The rest of the authors of the study took notes and supplemented the interviews whenever necessary. Likewise, the interviewees were encouraged to provide as much information as possible, whether it was their own or an experience from a colleague or acquaintance, and to avoid focusing exclusively on their own experiences. More information on the questions is available in the study by Pina et al. (2021a) .

Data analysis

The data of this study were analyzed through a thematic analysis following the proposal of Braun and Clarke (2006) , assuming a constructivist and inductive approach. Once the focus groups were conducted, with the aim of identifying and describing certain patterns in the data, the transcriptions of the recordings were carried out as a first contact with these data. Following this method, the data should be transcribed with the supervision of a minimum of two researchers, taking notes and ideas that could be relevant to consider in later phases of the study. Once this was done, codes were generated using an inductive or bottom-up method, starting from the virgin data without the intention of framing them in an existing theoretical framework. These codes were subsequently discussed by all the authors of the study, divided into pairs, and, if no consensus was reached, multiple coding was carried out.

The codes generated were grouped into topics and subtopics, with the researchers relying on maps and tables for better visual representation, thus discarding codes irrelevant to the research. For the proper construction of topics, we chose to follow a constructivist perspective, exploring latent topics in the information collected and avoiding the simple description of data.

Once these steps were completed, it was decided to go back in the process to review the codes, adjusting them as necessary and thus ensuring congruence with the data collected. Finally, for a topic to be considered, it had to be present in a minimum of four focus groups, except for information considered very important by most of the researchers. After this definition, all the information was structured using a conceptual map.

The thematic analysis applied to the various focus groups identified three interrelated blocks of attitudes toward violence based on socioeconomic discrimination or aporophobia. Due to the complexity of their interactions, the information is presented separately. The extracted topics were titled as attitudes toward violence based on aporophobia (a) to feel better or increase self-esteem, (b) perceived as legitimate, and (c) as a way of socializing. Each of these blocks are divided into subtopics that elaborate on each of these attitudes ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Attitudes toward school violence based on socioeconomic discrimination or aporophobia.

Attitudes toward aporophobic violence in school to feel better

In the different focus groups, it was observed that attitudes toward violence based on aporophobia are strongly related to the need to feel better about oneself, whether the objective is to increase one’s self-esteem or to have fun. The ways to feel better are multiple. For example, possessing things that are considered better or novel by others can place the child in a position of power and take advantage of this to make fun of or even exclude the rest of the peers who do not share this status as can be seen in this example with video game consoles:

“I know a case that happened to a friend of mine, he had a Nintendo Switch when it had just been released. As I don’t have it, and neither does my other friend, he would say “I have a Nintendo Switch and I have Super Mario 11” and he would start bragging. He was bragging because it was more expensive, and they bought it to him, and he feels special.”

On some occasions, it seems that children consider it a positive thing to be envied by others for what they possess. In many occasions, this is given by the economic value of these objects:

“For example, you say that they are going to give you a present if you get good grades, and then people compare what they have with others. And they ask you, how much money did it cost? It cost me 100 and you prefer not to tell them how much yours cost because the most important thing is that you like it. They tell you that it’s better to say how much it costs because then you can tell how good it is.”

Status is not always marked by material possessions. In this regard, being a relevant figure in the school (popular) or having access to figures of power, such as having family members who are teachers or directors, can give certain power to children who use this to position themselves above others. Access to power figures seems to be more important at younger ages while, as adolescence progresses, it seems to be more important to be popular or to have followers. The following example would refer to this idea.

“he’s always laughing at others, but it’s because his mother is a teacher and he thinks he’s better.”

This type of attitude may be accentuated if the object (or relevant figure) itself is something that only the minor or a very small group of minors in the school possesses. The magnitude of the associated violent behaviors may be increased in relation to this, leading to the generalization of this type of behavior to a larger number of peers in the school.

Attitudes toward aporophobic violence in school perceived as legitimate

On occasions, minors consider it fair or legitimate to exercise violence toward peers based mainly on aspects related to the material objects they own or access to these relevant figures mentioned above. One aspect that seems to be of importance is the “branding” of the things owned. That is to say, the group seems to strongly penalize those minors who do not wear “prestigious brand” clothing in their social circle, with teasing and exclusion predominating. Objects or garments that imitate “prestigious brands” deserve special mention due to their high prevalence and intensity of the associated behaviors. If the footwear they wear is an imitation of one of these “brands,” the group can legitimize violent behaviors of greater intensity, even reaching the point of physical violence:

“If you don’t wear brand shoes, you wear imitations, they take it out on you.”

“Well, many times it usually happens because of the shoes. Because many times kids wear ones … That are not of a brand, right? Imitation, basically, right? And other kids go and say: look! These are Nike and they cost me 100 euros, and you don’t! You are wearing 10-euro shoes (laughs).”

“Maybe she’s wearing an Adidas T-shirt and I’m wearing a fake [Adidas] one and she says: ‘Oh, yours is from the market, whatever … Look at her, she’s wearing one from the market’.”

“Just because you’re wearing something fake you are less than me.”

The legitimization of violence based on what one has or does not have can lead minors to violent behaviors that are aimed at damaging or destroying the things of others that are perceived to be of lesser value:

“Sometimes they step on my sneakers and yeah, I don’t know. Because they don’t cost the same as theirs.”

“They also step on [your shoes] if you wear high heels or you are not fashionable.”

Although the clothes the children are wearing seems to be an important factor here, they claim that other aspects are even more relevant, such as whether an object looks ugly to them, such as the backpack or pencil case they have, or how expensive the cell phone they have is:

“If you have an iPhone, then you have more money, they can afford it. If they have an Android phone or that stuff, then they don’t have as much money, they can’t afford to buy an iPhone. If you have that you can do whatever you want.”

The idea of what you have varies by age. Younger students tend to have fewer possessions so they may make these distinctions based on the possessions their parents or guardians have:

“How many TVs, how many cars you have … If you have a Smart TV, you are God.”

An exceptional case of legitimization is based on something that the whole school considers basic, i.e., that everyone has or should have. When a minor lacks this element, there seems to be greater justification for violent behavior. Some of these things could be the school uniform: “Worse things happen to you if you wear the old school equipment. ” In this type of circumstance, the child who lacks this element may receive violent behavior from many schoolmates:

“I once, for a whole year, I wore a swim cap from when I was in first grade, a yellow one. Everyone started laughing at me because I didn’t have the red one until I bought the other one in second grade.”

Attitudes toward aporophobic violence in school as a form of socialization

Attitudes toward aporophobic violence seem to influence the social interactions of minors. Although social behaviors, such as exclusion, are observed in the examples reported above, they are not included in this section because exclusion has been understood as the manifestation of violent behavior and not as a motivating attitude. In this regard, here we include attitudes that guide socialization with peers based on what they have or do not have.

When a minor differs physically from what is established for their sex, this is perceived as a sufficient reason to tease, ridicule, or perform other actions. This type of behavior is performed especially when the recipients are boys with characteristics associated with the feminine stereotype:

“For example, I once heard that some kids were fighting because one of them wanted to play dodgeball, and those that were playing wouldn’t let him because he was wearing the old school equipment. And they said ‘You can’t play because you are not updated’.”

“The Fila brand shoes, the girls who wear them tell the others: why aren’t you wearing them? If you are not fashionable, you don’t play.”

In line with the above, there seems to be a social norm that leads children to relate more to those who are of the same status, i.e., those who have things of similar value or as new as those they own:

“There are shoes that I can’t wear because I have an allergy in my foot, so sometimes they leave me alone because I don’t wear the same shoes they wear.”

“If you have the newest console, if it’s the best console out there right now, they don’t discriminate you if you play some games.”

In general terms, these attitudes hardly occur in isolation. A minor can exercise violence toward another for not wearing brand clothing and do so with the social legitimization of these behaviors and with the aim of increasing their own self-esteem.

This study is an exploration of attitudes toward violence against those with fewer resources in a Spanish sample and their relationship with different manifestations of violence. The results obtained are in line with a possible attitude-behavior relationship previously discussed ( Kraus, 1995 ; Pina et al., 2022 ).

From the perspective of school violence, data on the participants’ experiences obtained through qualitative studies allow a better understanding of this social phenomenon, favoring the specificity of the results, a prerequisite for the design of more effective intervention programs ( Merrell et al., 2008 ).

Regarding the hypothesis of our study, the results obtained show the existence of attitudes toward aporophobic violence in schools. Specifically, it is observed that these attitudes are related to the use of violence as a way of feeling better about oneself, perceived as legitimate and as a way of relating to peers. All these blocks interact with each other, thus forming a complex network of attitudes and behaviors that influence school coexistence problems that especially affect students from families of low socioeconomic levels.

At the time of this study, there is no knowledge of previous studies that explore attitudes toward school violence from the perspective of aporophobia. However, several studies have delved into the attitude-violent behavior relationship in the school context. For example, Pina et al. (2021a) concluded, in a study similar to this one, that attitudes toward school violence in the general population are related to violence to feel better about oneself, as a form of fun, perceived as legitimate, when directed at those who are different, when it has no consequences, as a way to resolve conflicts, as a way to socialize, and as a way to attract the attention of peers. Likewise, the study by Pina et al. (2021b) identifies four types of attitudes toward violence directed toward students belonging to the LGBTQI + community were identified, these being the use of violence as a form of fun, to feel better, when it is perceived as legitimate and as a way of relating to members of this community. The results presented in both studies partially agree with ours, sharing two of the topics obtained.

From the perspective of studies on aporophobia, there is previous evidence on the relationship between attitudes toward violence and socioeconomic status of students. Along these lines, a positive correlation has been found between attitudes toward violence and belonging to a higher socioeconomic level ( Massarwi and Khoury-Kassabri, 2017 ). Students with a high family income level in their samples present a higher risk of being bullies ( Barboza et al., 2009 ; Chang et al., 2013 ). In turn, adolescents from low socioeconomic status families would be at higher risk of victimization ( Due et al., 2009b ). Furthermore, Due et al. (2009b) suggested that the association between SES and bullying behavior may be more salient when SES among students varies markedly from the overall wealth of a school or community. These results would support those presented in our study where, according to the interviews, minors with greater economic resources could have greater access to valuable, novelty or “branded” objects, enhancing their attitudes toward violence and, therefore, increasing the risk of manifesting such attitudes in the form of school violence. However, there are studies that claim that socioeconomic status is not a variable statistically associated with being a perpetrator of school violence ( Wang et al., 2009 , 2012 ; Larochette et al., 2010 ; Magklara et al., 2012 ; Shetgiri et al., 2013 ). Taking this into account, it would be interesting to propose studies that consider violence among students from the same school who are perceived as belonging to different social statuses in order to reach more solid conclusions.

Regarding the topics obtained in our analysis, the children showed a wide range of attitudes toward violence as a way to feel better about themselves or to increase their self-esteem. Based on the data, the issue lies in the need to increase self-esteem, even though it may be apparently high ( Pina et al., 2021a ). Previous studies highlight that high and low levels of self-esteem have been related to increased bullying perpetration ( Tsaousis, 2016 ). Specifically, other works have found a positive association between self-esteem and being a bully, such that the probability of being a bully is higher when the student has high self-esteem ( Guerra et al., 2011 ). In our understanding, minors see in material things an opportunity to differentiate themselves from others and position themselves as a person of value in their social circle, using things as a way to “inflate” self-esteem. As has been observed in previous studies (e.g., Ruiz-Hernández et al., 2020 ), the legitimization of school violence is one of the most influential factors in the manifestation of violent behavior. This could drive violent behaviors in children who have more things than others simply because they have them, and these behaviors could become normalized in schools. In this regard, violence toward those who don’t own objects or garments is also observed in the focus groups of other qualitative studies, for example, in Morrow (2001) , Daly and Leonard (2002) , and Willow (2002 , p. 53). For many minors, especially among older age groups, social acceptance meant being able to dress similarly to others in their social circle, wearing brand-name clothing, for example ( Attree, 2006 ). Likewise, the children interviewed showed a wide range of attitudes toward violence as a way of socializing. In this line, it has been found that violence can be used to socialize, especially if social skills have not been developed ( Werner and Hill, 2010 ). Social skills, together with the level of maladjustment, indirectly predict involvement in bullying ( Postigo et al., 2012 ).

Based on our results, on direct experience and on what has been previously presented in the bibliography ( Middleton et al., 1994 ; Morrow, 2001 ; Daly and Leonard, 2002 ; Willow, 2002 ; Backett-Milburn et al., 2003 ; Attree, 2006 ; p. 53), we consider it appropriate to make a theoretical approach to the reality of aporophobia in schools. In this sense, there seem to be three fundamental dimensions that serve as a basis for establishing the hierarchical structure or status of the school. These three dimensions are: (a) the amount of expensive or brand-name items owned, (b) the exclusive or fashionable items owned, and (c) access to relevant or powerful figures. As our results show, children base their violent aporophobic attitudes on one or more of these dimensions. The reader should bear in mind that the culture of the school itself will mark what is considered expensive, novel or a power figure. This means that one object may be considered very valuable in one school, but of little or no value in another. In our understanding, the relational dynamics that arise according to these three dimensions generate four statuses in the schools. These would be: (a) high status, defined by those children who stand out in all three dimensions (for example: they have expensive or brand items, are fashionable and popular); (b) medium-high status, encompassing those children who have some of these resources considered special; (c) medium-low status, composed of children who do not stand out in any of these dimensions but do not lack anything considered essential and; (d) low status, which would include children who lack something that is considered basic in the culture of their school. Based on this structure, attitudes toward violence and aporophobic violent behavior would have a hierarchical character. In this sense, children who perceive themselves as having a higher status than others might have higher attitudes toward this type of violence in order to feel better or as a way of socializing. The rest of the group could legitimize/normalize those attitudes toward violence when they are directed from a member of a higher status to a lower status. In short, based on the proposals of various works ( Smith, 1976 ; Cortina, 1995 ; Martínez, 2002 ; Andrade, 2008 ; Bakke, 2011 ; Pozo-Enciso and Arbieto-Mamani, 2020 ), aporophobia in the school context could be defined as emotions, attitudes and/or behaviors of rejection of peers who are perceived as “poorer” or of lower social status. This perception is induced or learned through the culture of the school itself, laying the foundations of the socioeconomic system or status of minors. Thus, according to Attree (2006) review of qualitative studies, these disadvantages in childhood can lead to the perception that economic and social constraints are natural and normal, which has an impact on children’s life expectancy.

The conclusions reached in this study have a wide variety of implications for socio-community intervention and research. In terms of research, the qualitative approach to attitudes toward violence based on aporophobia is a novel contribution to this field of study. This study provides evidence to the previous quantitative studies, allowing us to explore the specificity, complexity, and variety of attitudes. Our results are useful to understand the school climate and school violence based on aporophobia, facilitating the proactive participation of children in knowledge-building about the subject.

Regarding socio-community intervention, our results suggest that it is important to include a change of attitude toward violence within the programs to improve coexistence in the academic area. As mentioned earlier, meta-analytic studies suggest that modification of attitudes toward violence is an effective perspective to improve the school climate ( Mytton et al., 2006 ; Fox et al., 2010 ; Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2012 , 2016 ).

Implications for research and practice

The findings of this study have a wide range of implications not only from a research point of view but also from a welfare point of view. First, this qualitative approach to attitudes toward violence makes a new contribution to the field. On the one hand, attitudes are usually approached from a quantitative point of view, with our results being useful for the research topic through the proactive participation of students. In this sense, the qualitative approach allows a better understanding of emotional experiences and how they occur in their contexts ( Callaghan et al., 2015 ). On the other hand, this study focuses on attitudes toward violence based on aporophobia. Studies dealing with this type of population are almost non-existent, so these results can serve as a basis for future research. Finally, our results and theoretical proposals suggest the usefulness of designing school violence prevention or intervention plans from the approach of changing attitudes toward violence. Some programs already address this problem considering attitudes with excellent results ( Jiménez-Barbero et al., 2016 ), however, it could be useful to improve the specificity of these programs, adapting them to the context of children with diverse characteristics, thus increasing their effectiveness.

This study has some limitations. For example, in qualitative studies it is not possible to generalize the results, so it would be interesting to replicate similar studies in other countries or social contexts. This type of work would allow us to explore the similarities and differences with the results described here. Another limitation of this study would be the small sample size. Although qualitative studies are characterized by limited samples, it would be interesting to carry out studies especially with primary school students or with secondary school students, specifically with larger sample sizes. Another limitation of this study is that no values were collected for the socioeconomic level of the participants or the school. According to Due et al. (2009b) , the association between SES and bullying behavior may be more salient when SES among students varies markedly from the general wealth of a school or community, so collecting this information will contribute more information to the study.

In our opinion, it would be advisable to complement the results of this study with quantitative studies, either by applying or creating instruments specific to this type of attitudes toward violence. Finally, the use of an incidental sample of three schools may not be representative of the adolescent population of the region or the country. In our understanding, the culture of the center will be what marks what is “good” or “bad,” “new” or “old” and, therefore, will have a direct influence on attitudes toward aporophobic violence. However, we believe that the formal structure and dynamics mentioned will be relatively stable between schools and can serve as a basis for the interpretation of similar studies.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Murcia (ID: 2317/2019). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author contributions

DP and MM-T contributed to the conception and design of the study. DP conducted the interviews. DP, MM-T, EP-L, and JR-H conducted the qualitative analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. DP, MM-T, RL-L, and LM-A wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

The publication of this article was funded by the Applied Psychology Service of the University of Murcia.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank all the participants of this study, as well as their mothers, fathers, legal guardians, and the professionals of the schools for their participation.

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.

Alikasifoglu, M., Erginoz, E., Ercan, O., Uysal, O., and Albayrak-Kaymak, D. (2007). Bullying behaviours and psychosocial health: results from a cross-sectional survey among high school students in Istanbul, Turkey. Eur. J. Pediatr . 166, 1253–1260. doi: 10.1007/s00431-006-0411-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Álvarez-García, D., Núñez, J. C., García, T., and Barreiro-Collazo, A. (2018). Individual, family, and community predictors of cyber-aggression among adolescents. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context. 10, 79–88. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2018a8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andrade, M. (2008). >Qué es la “aporofobia”? Un análisis conceptual sobre prejuicios, estereotipos y discriminación hacia los pobres. Agenda Soc. 2, 117–139.

Google Scholar

Ardiles, F. (2008). Apuntes sobre la pobreza y su cultura. Observat. Lab. Rev. Venezolan 1, 127–137.

Attree, P. (2006). The social costs of child poverty: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Child. Soc. 20, 54–66. doi: 10.1002/chi.854

Backett-Milburn, K., Cunningham-Burley, S., and Davis, J. (2003). Contrasting lives, contrasting views? Understandings of health inequalities from children in different social circumstances. Soc. Sci. Med. 57, 613–623. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00413-6

Bakke, K. (2011). The opposite of poverty is not plenty, but friendship: “Dorothy Day’s pragmatic theology of detachment. Ph D thesis, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., and Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. J. Youth Adolesc. 38, 101–121. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1

Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., and Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’ s bullying involvement: a nationally representative longitudinal study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. 48, 545–553. doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819cb017

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Callaghan, J. E. M., Alexander, J. H., Sixsmith, J., and Fellin, L. C. (2015). Beyond “witnessing:” Children’s experiences of coercive control in domestic violence and abuse. J. Interpers. Viol . 33, 1551–1581. doi: 10.1177/0886260515618946

Chang, F., Lee, C., Chiu, C., Hsi, W., Huang, T., and Pan, Y. (2013). Relationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. J. Sch. Health 83, 454–462. doi: 10.1111/josh.12050

Comim, F., Borsi, M. T., and Valerio Mendoza, O. (2020). The Multi-dimensions of Aporophobia. Ph D thesis, Germany: Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.

Cortina, A. (1995). La educación del hombre y del ciudadano. Rev. Iberoam Educ. 7, 41–63.

Cortina, A. (1996). Ética. Spain: Editorial Santillana.

Cortina, A. (2000). Aporofobia. Spain: El País.

Daly, M., and Leonard, M. (2002). Against all odds: Family life on a low income in Ireland. Ireland: Combat Poverty Agency.

Davis, J., and Ridge, T. (1997). Same scenery, different lifestyle: Rural children on a low income. London: The Children’s Society.

Due, P., Damsgaard, M. T., Lund, R., and Holstein, B. E. (2009a). Is bullying equally harmful for rich and poor children?: A study of bullying and depression from age 15 to 27. Eur. J. Public Health 19, 464–469. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp099

Due, P., Merlo, J., Harel-Fisch, Y., Damsgaard, M. T., Holstein, B. E., Hetland, J., et al. (2009b). Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-Sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. J. Am. Public Health Assoc. 99, 907–914. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.139303

Earnshaw, V. A., Reisner, S. L., Menino, D. D., Poteat, V. P., Bogart, L. M., Barnes, T. N., et al. (2018). Stigma-based bullying interventions: A systematic review. Dev. Rev. 48, 178–200. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2018.02.001

Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer, K. A., and Eckstein, R. P. (2020). School personnel’s bystander action in situations of dating violence, sexual violence, and sexual harassment among high school teens: A qualitative analysis. J. Interpers. Viol. 35, 2358–2369. doi: 10.1177/0886260517698821

Elgar, F. J., Craig, W., Boyce, W. T., Morgan, A., and Vella-Zarb, R. (2009). Income inequality and school bullying: Multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries. J. Adolesc. Health 45, 351–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.004

Fox, C. L., Elder, T., Gater, J., and Johnson, E. (2010). The association between adolescents’ beliefs in a just world and their attitudes to victims of bullying. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 80, 183–198. doi: 10.1348/000709909X479105

Fraguas, D., Díaz-Caneja, C. M., Ayora, M., Durán-Cutilla, M., Abregú-Crespo, R., Ezquiaga-Bravo, I., et al. (2021). Assessment of school anti-bullying interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Pediatr. 175, 44–55. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3541

Fu, Q., Land, K. C., and Lamb, V. L. (2013). Bullying victimization, socioeconomic status and behavioral characteristics of 12th graders in the United States, 1989 to 2009: Repetitive trends and persistent risk differentials. Child Indic. Res. 6, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s12187-012-9152-8

Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., Lawlor, D. A., and Lynch, J. W. (2006a). Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 60, 7–12.

Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., Lawlor, D. A., and Lynch, J. W. (2006b). Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 2). J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 60, 95–101. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028092

Glew, G. M., Fan, M. Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., and Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med . 159, 1026–1031. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026

Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., and Sadek, S. (2011). Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Dev. 82, 295–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01556.x

Ho, A., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., et al. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38, 583–606. doi: 10.1177/0146167211432765

Jansen, D. E. M. C., Veenstra, R., Ormel, J., Verhulst, F. C., and Reijneveld, S. A. (2011). Early risk factors for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The longitudinal TRAILS study. BMC Public Health 11:440–447. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-440

Jansen, P. W., Verlinden, M., Dommisse-van Berkel, A., Mieloo, C., Van der Ende, J., Verhulst, F. C., et al. (2012). Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: do family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Public Health 12:494–504. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-494

Jiménez-Barbero, J. A., Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., Llor-Esteban, B., and Pérez-García, M. (2012). Effectiveness of antibullying school programmes: A systematic review by evidence levels. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 34, 1646–1658. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.025

Jiménez-Barbero, J. A., Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., Llor-Zaragoza, L., Pérez-García, M., and Llor-Esteban, B. (2016). Children and youth services review effectiveness of anti-bullying school programs: A meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv. Rev. 61, 165–175. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.015

Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the empirical literature. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21, 58–75. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211007

Krueger, R. A. (ed.) (1991). El grupo de discusión. Guía práctica para la investigación aplicada [Focus groups: Practical guide for applied research]. Spain: Pirámide.

Larochette, A., Murphy, A. N., and Craig, W. M. (2010). Racial bullying and victimization in Canadian school-aged children: Individual and school level effects. Relationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. Sch. Psychol. Int. 31, 389–408. doi: 10.1177/0143034310377150

Lumeng, J. C., Forrest, P., Appugliese, D. P., Kaciroti, N., Corwyn, R. F., and Bradley, R. H. (2010). Weight status as a predictor of being bullied in third through sixth grades. Pediatrics 125, 1301–1307. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0774

Magklara, K., Skapinakis, P., Gkatsa, T., Bellos, S., Araya, R., Stylianidis, S., et al. (2012). Bullying behaviour in schools, socioeconomic position and psychiatric morbidity: A cross-sectional study in late adolescents in Greece. Child Adolesc. Psych. Ment. Health 6, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/1753-2000-6-8

Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., Smith, T. J., and Emmons, J. (2020). Disability, poverty, and other risk factors associated with involvement in bullying behaviors. J. Sch. Psychol. 78, 115–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.01.002

Martínez, E. (2002). “Aporofobia,” in Glosario Para una Sociedad Intercultural , ed. J. Conill (Spain: Bancaja), 17–23.

Massarwi, A. A., and Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2017). Serious physical violence among Arab-Palestinian adolescents: The role of exposure to neighborhood violence, perceived ethnic discrimination, normative beliefs, and, parental communication. Child Abuse Negl. 63, 233–244. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.002

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., and Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. Sch. Psychol. Q. 23, 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Middleton, S., Ashworth, K., and Walker, R. (1994). Family Fortunes: Pressures on Parents and Children in the 1990s. London, UK: Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG).

Miranda Miranda, J. K., Ganga León, C., and Crockett Castro, M. (2020). A qualitative account of children’s perspectives and responses to intimate partner violence in Chile. Ph D thesis, Santiago de Chile, Chile: Universidad de Chile. doi: 10.1177/0886260520903132

Morrow, V. (2001). Networks and Neighbourhoods: Children’s and Young People’s Perspectives. London, UK: Health Development Agency.

Mytton, J. A., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D., Taylor, R. S., and Logan, S. (2006). School-based secondary prevention programmes for preventing violence. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006:CD004606. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004606.pub2

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Psychol. Sch. 40, 699–700. doi: 10.1002/pits.10114

Pina, D., Llor-Esteban, B., Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., Luna-Maldonado, A., and Puente-López, E. (2021a). Attitudes towards school violence: a qualitative study with Spanish children. J. Interpers. Viol. 37, 13–14. doi: 10.1177/0886260520987994

Pina, D., Marín-Talón, M. C., López-López, R., Martínez-Sánchez, A., Simina-Cormos, L., Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., et al. (2021b). Attitudes toward school violence against LGBTQIA+. a qualitative study. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 18:11389. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182111389

Pina, D., López-Nicolás, R., López-López, R., Puente-López, E., and Ruiz-Hernández, J. A. (2022). Association between attitudes toward violence and violent behavior in the school context: A systematic review and correlational meta-analysis. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 22:100278. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2021.100278

Postigo, S., González, R., Mateu, C., and Montoya, I. (2012). Predicting bullying: maladjustment, social skills and popularity. Educ. Psychol. 32, 627–639. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2012.680881

Pozo-Enciso, R. S., and Arbieto-Mamani, O. (2020). La aporofobia en el contexto de la sociedad peruana: Una revisión. Rev. Cien. Soc. Humanid. 30, 134–149. doi: 10.20983/noesis.2020.2.6

RAIS fundación (2017). Informe jurídico sobre aporofobia, el odio al pobre. España: RAIS Fundación.

Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., Pina, D., Puente-López, E., Luna-Maldonado, A., and Llor-Esteban, B. (2020). Attitudes towards school violence questionnaire, revised version: CAHV-28. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 12, 61–68. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2020a8

Ruiz-Hernández, J. A., Moral-Zafra, E., Llor-Esteban, B., and Jiménez-Barbero, J. A. (2019). Influence of parental styles and other psychosocial variables on the development of externalizing behaviors in adolescents: a sytematic review. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 11, 000–000. doi: 10.5093/ejpalc2018a11

Shetgiri, R., Lin, H., and Flores, G. (2013). Trends in risk and protective factors for child bullying perpetration in the United States. Child Psych. Hum. Dev. 44, 89–104. doi: 10.1007/s10578-012-0312-3

Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments , 6th Edn. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Tippett, N., and Wolke, D. (2014). Socioeconomic Status and Bullying: A meta-analysis. Am. J. Public Health 104, e48–e59. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301960

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., and Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 19, 349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Tsaousis, I. (2016). The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Aggress Viol. Behav. 31, 186–199. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.005

UNESCO (2017). School violence and bullying: Global status report. France: UNESCO.

Varela, J. J., Zimmerman, M. A., Ryan, A. M., Stoddard, S. A., and Heinze, J. E. (2018). School attachment and violent attitudes preventing future violent behavior among youth. J. Interpers. Viol. 36, 5407–5426. doi: 10.1177/0886260518800314

Wang, H., Zhou, X., Lu, C., Wu, J., Deng, X., Hong, L., et al. (2012). Adolescent bullying involvement and psychosocial aspects of family and school life: A cross-sectional study from Guangdong Province in China. PLoS One 7:e38619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038619

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., and Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. J. Adolesc. Health 45, 368–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021

Wardle, J., Robb, K., and Johnson, F. (2002). Assessing socioeconomic status in adolescents: The validity of a home affluence scale. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 56, 595–599. doi: 10.1136/jech.56.8.595

Werner, N. E., and Hill, L. G. (2010). Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression. Child Dev. 81, 826–836. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01436.x

Willow, C. (2002). Bread is Free: Children and Young People Talk about Poverty. London, UK: Children’s Rights Alliance.

Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., and Schluz, H. (2010). Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. Br. J. Psychol. 92, 673–696. doi: 10.1348/000712601162419

Woods, S., and Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. J. Sch. Psychol. 42, 135–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2003.12.002

Keywords : attitudes, qualitative study, bullying, school violence, aporophobia, socioeconomic discrimination

Citation: Pina D, Marín-Talón MC, López-López R, Martínez-Andreu L, Puente-López E and Ruiz-Hernández JA (2022) Attitudes towards school violence based on aporophobia. A qualitative study. Front. Educ. 7:1009405. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.1009405

Received: 01 August 2022; Accepted: 01 September 2022; Published: 23 September 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Pina, Marín-Talón, López-López, Martínez-Andreu, Puente-López and Ruiz-Hernández. 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: María Catalina Marín-Talón, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Towards 2030: Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. An Educational Perspective

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Attitudes toward School Violence against LGBTQIA+. A Qualitative Study

1 Department of Socio-Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Espinardo Campus, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain; [email protected]

2 Applied Psychology Service, Espinardo Campus, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain; moc.liamg@99zepolzepolseyer (R.L.-L.); [email protected] (A.M.-S.); [email protected] (L.S.C.); se.mu@ziuraj (J.A.R.-H.)

María Catalina Marín-Talón

Reyes lópez-lópez, ainhoa martínez-sánchez, lucía simina cormos, josé antonio ruiz-hernández.

3 Department of Social Psychology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Psychology, Espinardo Campus, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain

Begoña Abecia

4 Consolidated Group of Scientific Research on Occupational Medicine (GIIS-063), Aragon Health Research Institute (IIS-Aragon), 50009 Zaragoza, Spain; moc.liamg@aicebaogeb

Begoña Martínez-Jarreta

5 Department of Pathological Anatomy, Forensic and Legal Medicine and Toxicology, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain; se.razinu@aterrajm

Associated Data

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the confidentiality agreement with the participants.

School climate is one of the main concerns in terms of research and intervention worldwide. Although it can be directed toward any student, some groups seem to be more vulnerable, as is the case of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex +) students, among others. Attitudes toward violence are a construct of particular importance for action plans focused on improving school coexistence. The aim of this study is to examine attitudes toward school violence against LGBTQIA+ students and their relationship with violent behaviors. For this purpose, 96 Spanish students of Spanish elementary education (PE) and compulsory secondary education (CSE) participated in this qualitative study through focus groups for its subsequent thematic analysis. The results identify four types of attitudes toward violence, such as the use of violence as a form of fun, to feel better, when it is perceived as legitimate, and as a way of relating to the LGBTQIA+ community. In addition, a greater number of negative attitudes and violent behaviors toward homosexual boys and transgender minors are observed.

1. Introduction

School violence is a serious worldwide public health problem. Despite the recent increase in interest, this social problem has always been present at schools. Several studies have addressed the prevalence of this type of behavior. Recently, it has estimated that 30% of minors worldwide are exposed to school violence [ 1 ]. This number is reduced to 25% in Europe and approximately to 15% in Spain.

School violence is a multifaceted construct that encompasses both teachers and students, with behaviors of victimization, perpetration, physical and/or psychological injuries, among others [ 2 , 3 ]. In addition, Anderson and Huessman [ 4 ] point out that, for a behavior to be classified as aggression, the behavior, carried out with the intention of harming, need not cause objectifiable damage. According to the literature, among the behaviors that are included as school violence are humiliation, social exclusion, physical harm, destruction of property, or disruption in the classroom, among others [ 1 ].

While it is true that violence in the classroom can be directed toward any student, perpetrators have a greater tendency to bully people belonging to certain minority groups, as is the case of the LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex +) community [ 5 ]. This community includes people with emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction to people of the same or both sexes, as well as people whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to the sex assigned at birth [ 6 ]. Thus, a recent systematic review concludes that the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity is the basis for the violence directed toward these minors [ 7 ]. It has even been claimed that children in this group perceive more violence at school. For example, it has been stated that homosexual students experience a greater number of taunts than their heterosexual peers [ 8 ].

Studies that have addressed the prevalence of school violence against the LGBTQIA+ community find a greater proportion of victims compared to studies with general population. Specifically, according to data collected in the United States, 74% of minors with a non-normative sexual orientation or identity have been verbally assaulted, 36% physically harassed, and 16% even physically assaulted [ 9 ]. In Spain, prevalence rates are between 51% and 58% [ 10 ]. In this line, Moyano and Sánchez-Fuentes [ 7 ] state that LGBTQIA+ minors are 91% more likely to suffer some type of violence by their peers, and three times more likely to be sexually assaulted, with a higher risk of polyvictimization. These authors have also observed that boys are more likely than girls to be victims, and that verbal harassment is the most reported manifestation in these cases.

Although the consequences of school violence are negative, LGBTQIA+ minors seem to suffer them to a greater extent, probably due to the poor training of teachers in this regard and the previous inexistence of inclusion policies in schools [ 11 ]. Among these consequences, poorer educational results and higher absenteeism stand out at the school level, also leading to lower interest in pursuing higher education. In terms of mental health, these minors are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, substance abuse, and/or risky behavior concerning their sexual health [ 5 ]. Moreover, LGBTQIA+ youth victims of school violence have even been found to have a significantly higher risk of suicidal ideation and behavior [ 8 , 9 ].

With the aim of improving the well-being of minors, many studies have related school violence to various social, family, school, and personal variables [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Among these variables, attitudes toward violence have been widely reported as a particularly important variable for the improvement of school climate [ 14 , 18 , 19 ]. Specifically, Orue and Calvete [ 20 ] assert that negative attitudes toward LGBTQIA+ minors may explain the relationship between exposure to homophobic behavior at school and perpetration of homophobic bullying. Likewise, UNESCO states that the main attitude underlying violence toward the LGBTQIA+ community is homophobia, understood as the rejection or aversion to people who do not behave according to the established gender roles or who feel sexually attracted to people of the same sex [ 1 ].

The relationship between attitudes toward violence and school violence has been previously studied in the literature. Traditionally, studies with quantitative methodologies use self-reported questionnaires. Sometimes, the use of tools with closed questions does not allow delving into the specificity of the attitude-behavior relationship necessary for its study and/or understanding [ 21 ]. Qualitative studies allow us to explore attitudes toward violence from the perspective of minors, with a sufficient level of specificity [ 22 , 23 ] and they are a necessary complement to quantitative studies. Nevertheless, no previous studies have been found that assume a qualitative perspective that explore the relationship between attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community and the violence against the aforementioned in a school context. In this sense, there are qualitative studies that specifically explore violence toward the LGBTQIA+ community, such as Grossman et al. [ 24 ], who, through five focus groups with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, explored experiences related to school violence. This study concluded that the interviewees did not feel part of their school community, lacking the sense of empowerment that stems from belonging to a group of sexual minority youth. In addition, the violent behaviors they reported were mainly insults, hate speech, harassment, and, sometimes, physical violence. This vulnerability that young people felt at school made them distance themselves from school as the main means of coping.

More recently, Juárez-Chávez et al. [ 25 ] conducted a qualitative exploration of violence experienced by gay men and transgender women through focus groups and in-depth interviews. The violence experienced in childhood and adolescence was grouped into: violence occurring at home or with family members, school violence, and sexual violence. Considering the violence that occurred at school, it is noteworthy that the participants reported that it was based not only on discrimination for their sexual orientation but also on weight, race, or disability. Furthermore, the impact of gender-specific norms (such as playing certain sports) was identified, as their non-compliance, with the corresponding transgression of stereotypes associated with masculinity, increases the risk of violence. As a consequence, many of the gay men internalized the rejection of behavior considered effeminate, preferring not to maintain contact with other gay men with this type of behavior. On another hand, they indicated differences between violence received by gay men and transgender women, with the latter the object of not only physical violence, such as hitting or pushing, but also of sexual violence, such as groping, with sexual violence being directed almost exclusively at this group.

The main objective of this study is to explore the attitudes and violent behavior toward the LGBTQIA+ community in the school context. Specifically, it aims to identify attitudes toward school violence directed against any member of the LGBTQIA+ community. Taking into account the literature consulted, our main hypothesis is that there will be a direct relationship between positive attitudes toward violence and violent behaviors toward the LGBTQIA+ community. Specifically, we hypothesize that both transgender minors and homosexual boys will be subject to positive attitudes toward violence and to violent behavior of greater intensity compared to other members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. theorical paradigm and study design.

In the present study, we used a qualitative research design for the analysis of attitudes toward violence targeting the LGBTQIA+ community at school. A large part of the published studies about the attitude–behavior relationship uses a quantitative approach [ 23 , 26 , 27 ]. Quantitative methodology, although essential for the investigation of this phenomenon, hardly captures the participants’ subjective perspective. This is why qualitative studies acquire special interest, as they facilitate the exploration of the minors’ point of view and how they communicate it, leading to a greater depth in the exploration of the meaning and understanding of the information provided. Unlike quantitative studies, the qualitative approach lacks an explicit theoretical, philosophical, epistemological, or ontological framework to guide the obtaining of results [ 28 , 29 ], positioning itself as a fundamental approach to the study of constructs that have been little addressed in the literature.

For the development of the qualitative methodology, the grounded theory perspective was used in the constructivist approach [ 30 ], by conducting focus groups [ 31 ]. This approach allows exploring specific situations, avoiding the classical problems of the use of self-reported instruments, especially in minors, when evaluating certain constructs [ 28 , 32 ].

The professionals responsible for the research have multiple publications on school violence. In particular, the research team was composed of a clinical psychologist expert in qualitative studies (first author), three psychologists with experience in working with minors (second, third, and fourth authors), and two social psychologists with experience in research on attitudes toward violence (fifth and sixth authors).

2.2. Particpants Recruitment

The present research study was conducted in Spain, 4 incidentally selected schools with a general curriculum participated, 2 schools of primary education (PE) and 2 schools of compulsory secondary education (CSE). The mean number of students was M = 663.33 (SD = 458.29). The participants of the study were selected from among all students enrolled in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grade of PE (9–13 years old) and 3rd and 4th grade of CSE (13–16 years old). Following the interests of the study, participants’ previous involvement in incidents of school violence against the LGBTQIA+ community, either as victims or aggressors, was not a requirement. Of the minors invited to assist in the research, only 10 refused to participate.

The final sample consisted of 96 participants, 53.1% male, with a mean age of 11.35 (SD = 2.09, range between 9 and 16 years). More information on the sample is available in Pina et al. (2021).

2.3. Procedure

The study has been written following the COREQ guidelines [ 33 ] and has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (ID: 2317/2019). The selection of schools was incidental. All the students, teachers, and parents/guardians of the classes included in this study were provided with written information on the objectives of the study together with an informed consent form. This consent requested the acceptance of both the audio recordings of the focus groups, as well as the use of these results for the scientific publications. The focus groups were conducted during school hours. For their creation, a random selection was made, with a maximum of four participants from each classroom. Students from different classrooms but all from the same grade shared their experiences in the same group. A total of 12 focus groups were conducted, with an average of 8 participants.

The inclusion criteria for these groups were: (a) to be a student at one of the participating centers, (b) to be over 9 years old or under 16, and (c) to have a good level of expression and comprehension of Spanish. The assumed exclusion criteria were: (a) being a minor enrolled in any grade other than those selected (from 4th grade of PE to 4th grade of CSE); (b) having some type of limitation in the comprehension or expression of language (cognitive or physical); (c) rejecting participation or not submit the informed consent form signed by the minor and their parents/guardians and/or (d) missing class on the day the study is conducted.

To carry out the focus groups, each school prepared spaces reserved exclusively for the development of the focus groups. The participants were accompanied from their classroom to this space by a member of the school management team. At the time of the interviews, only the minors and interviewers were present. Before starting the audio recording, they were reminded of the importance of their collaboration, sincerity, and respect for the opinions of their peers, as well as the anonymity of their participation. Emphasis was placed on the anonymity of the responses, reminding them that the recordings would be destroyed after their transcription, eliminating from this document any data that could identify them.

2.4. Data Collection

Focus group discussions were conducted to obtain data following the recommendations of Krueger [ 31 ]. This type of methodology has been frequently used in the literature [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].

In our study, a script was created prior to the formation of the focus groups, in which statements from the previous review of the literature on attitudes toward violence with the LGBTQIA+ group were collected. Following the methodology proposed by Morales [ 38 ], the authors prepared conceptual maps and interviews with key informants to complement and adapt the script to the reality and language used by the minors at schools. The script was tested with a pilot group of children other than those included in the present research.

At least two of the authors conducted each of the focus groups. The person who conducted the groups was male, with extensive training and experience with focus groups as shown in different published studies using this methodology. At the beginning of the interaction, a few minutes were spent to create a good atmosphere by asking questions unrelated to the object of study. The interviewer maintained neutrality by trying to remain free of biases and to not interfere in the children’s discourse. The rest of the researchers supported the different focus groups, taking notes and assisting when necessary, during the interviews. Throughout the performance of the focus group, participants were encouraged to provide information, about any circumstances of which they were aware while avoiding singling out or identifying any specific peer.

2.5. Interview Content

Previous studies [ 39 ] have provided the structure of the script developed, which covers several variables related to attitudes toward school violence. These variables are based on the model presented by [ 23 , 40 ]. All participants were asked an initial question that sought to explore attitudes toward violence when it is directed toward a member of the LGBTQIA+ community ( Table 1 ). This question was complemented by other questions that were intended to serve as facilitators of the participants’ narratives.

Example of questions asked to the focus groups.

2.6. Data Analysis

The data analysis followed the thematic analysis proposal of Braun and Clarke [ 41 ] with an inductive and constructionist approach. After the focus groups had been conducted, transcriptions of the recordings were made, which served as a first contact with the data collected. These transcripts were made by at least two of the authors of this study, participating in the writing process and the supervision of the transcripts. Data analysis was performed using inductive techniques, generating initial codes to be discussed later by the authors. If there was no consensus, multiple coding was performed. Once the codes were generated, they were grouped into topics and subtopics. In addition, visual aids were used to support of information. For this purpose, a constructivist perspective was adopted, avoiding a mere description of the data by exploring the latent themes of the information collected. This perspective was assumed given the implicit nature of attitudes, hence admitting in the analysis assumptions, structures, and/or broader meanings that support what is articulated in the data.

Once the previous points had been made, the process went back to refine the codes, adjusting them where necessary and ensuring congruence with the data. Generally, the proposed themes in this study were present in most of the focus groups, with the exception of the information that was considered by most of the authors as very important. After this filtering, the information was structured by means of a conceptual map.

Finally, the various topics were named and defined, the saturation of the data was discussed, and a report was prepared. With the completion of all these phases, the topics were associated with different extracts of information to facilitate their subsequent description. This whole process requires moving back and forward over the data to reduce biases and ensure the accuracy of the information collected [ 41 ]. For the generation of codes, the NVivo software was used. The participants of the study did not receive the transcripts for review, nor did they participate in the conclusions of the study.

After the application of the methodology described above, a set of four interrelated blocks of attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community. Under this perspective, the attitudes toward the use of violence against the LGBTQIA+ community that we extracted from the thematic analysis are: (a) as a form of fun, (b) to feel better, (c) when it is perceived as legitimate, (d) as a way of relating. See Figure 1 .

Attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community: topics and subtopics.

3.1. Attitudes toward the Use of Violence as a Form of Fun against the LGBTQIA+ Community

The first of the extracted topics refers to attitudes toward violence as an instrument through which minors can perceive themselves or be perceived as funny, without this violence necessarily being associated with an intention to hurt or harm others.

These negative attitudes are associated with situations in which there is a demonstration of affection between minors of the same sex, regardless of whether this affection takes place in a context of friendship. As mentioned earlier, these attitudes appear with greater intensity if the demonstration of affection is between two boys, whereas between girls it seems to be more socially accepted, and girls can express their friendship through various affectionate gestures without leading to a manifestation of violent behavior. The behaviors most associated closely with this attitude are teasing, jokes, or insults from other classmates who label them as homosexuals, using this name-calling as a form of aggression, as can be seen in the following example:

• - In our class, there are four or five of us that jokingly blow kisses at each other and they call us faggots, we do it as a joke and they say it to annoy us.

These attitudes are magnified when it is suspected that this display of affection is because two minors of the same sex are actually a couple. In this situation, violent behaviors of greater magnitude appear, such as ridicule, spreading rumors, or discrediting the image, all of which are mainly of a relational nature:

• - They started picking on them because they thought they were a couple.
• - Everything started with a sixth grader… who ended up telling someone in our class, and that person in the class told another person in our class, and they told one of them about it, and he didn’t like that.

Associated with this attitude, a very specific use of language has been identified, characterized by a large number of verbal offenses, using derogatory words to refer to homosexuality, to give it a negative connotation. For this purpose, minors use words such as “faggot, sissy, or lesbian”. It should be emphasized that, according to analyzed data, it is more common to use terms referring to the sexual condition in a pejorative way toward boys than to insult a girl in the same way. In this sense, when girls receive similar aggressive behaviors, they do not seem to be associated with the type of relationship they have with other girls but for some other reason.

• - A girl called a friend of mine lesbian because her parents were separated.

Finally, and as mentioned before, this type of attitude is not only used to amuse oneself but also to amuse others, as exemplified:

• + If a person is homosexual, what do you think they do to them?
• - Well, you can call him faggot.
• - No, you tell him: Hey! You are so limp-wristed (Laughter)

In this study, four examples were found in which pejorative terms regarding their sexuality (e.g., faggot, sissy, etc.) were used specifically toward children. On the contrary, two examples were found in which reference was made to terms regarding their sexuality, although these were of a descriptive nature (e.g., lesbian). Likewise, there is a greater variety of terms used to refer to homosexual boys.

3.2. Attitudes toward the Use of Violence against the LGBTQIA+ Community to Feel Better

The interviewees consider that violence toward the LGBTQIA+ community is also used to feel better about oneself. One of the aims of this behavior would be to try to feel socially attractive, strong, or superior to the peer group. These attitudes are mainly associated with rumor spreading and verbal violence to send a message of superiority, as seen in the conversation between two interviewees:

• - There is a girl in our class who is, well, who likes girls more, so someone in our class picks on her because of that.
• + And why do you think they do that?
• - I don’t know, to make her mad at him or to annoy her.
• - To look cool

3.3. Attitudes toward Violence against the LGBTQIA+ Community Perceived as Legitimate

Sometimes, participants identify the manifestation of violence as legitimate or justified, finding in our study a great variety of associated situations.

When a minor differs physically from what is established for their sex, this is perceived as a sufficient reason to tease, ridicule, or perform other actions. This type of behavior is performed especially when the recipients are boys with characteristics associated with the feminine stereotype:

• - There was a boy who had really long hair before, so they would say, ‘Oh, you are a girl, whatever, you have very long hair, you look like a girl.’ Like that all the time.

Moreover, this legitimization of violence seems to increase when the minor possesses characteristics associated with the female sex together with behaviors in line with this, such as, for example:

• - He said he was pregnant and so they always criticize him, they say, “If he’s a boy, how can he be pregnant?”, he wears crop tops and everything.
• - He wears makeup, he wears his hair long, … So, they criticize him a lot.

Sometimes, the interviewees claim that violent behavior may increase in intensity (belittling or physical aggression) to force the minor to behave in a way that agrees the stereotype associated with their birth sex. This magnification of violent behavior can be seen in the next comment:

• - Everyone would be surprised. And also, I know people who would do anything to make him go back to the way he was before, even beat him up.

The legitimization of violence is not exclusively associated with the behavior of others. In other words, minors may justify violence because of the differences in thinking, such as another minor considering it appropriate for them to be attracted to someone of the same sex. These violent attitudes are manifested through verbal aggressions, isolation, exclusion, or rejection of minors who think differently.

A variant of these attitudes to highlight is when the violence toward a person of the same sex is legitimized because the aggressor considers that the other person feels attracted to them. This situation is mainly based on the rejection of the idea that a homosexual person might be attracted to you.

In our results, this type of attitude was not observed in girls. When girls perceived that a person of the same sex might be attracted to them, they did not seem to be concerned about the idea of being labeled as homosexual as much as not having sufficient resources to handle the situation.

• + Would you be okay with having a [girl] partner who liked girls?
• - Yes, I wouldn’t mind.
• - It would feel strange, wouldn’t it? In case she likes you, I don’t know.
• - And you don’t know how to turn her down.
• - That’s true, how would you turn her down?
• - In the same way as you reject boys. I have friends like that and it gives me… the only thing that scares me is that they like me.
• - With male friends that can happen too.
• - Yes, but a male friend is a guy.

Depending on the type of relationship, when this happen between boys, there seems to be a legitimization of violent behavior of greater intensity, going from occasional teasing to behaviors of exclusion and isolation, especially in activities with people of the same sex. Associated with this legitimization is the idea that the members of the LGBTQIA+ community do not defend themselves from aggression, as one interviewee commented “sometimes, you even hit them because you know they are not going to defend themselves”.

3.4. Attitudes toward Violence against the LGBTQIA+ Community as a Way to Socialize

Violence can also be used as a way to interact with the rest of peers, either facilitating the relationship or hindering it. In this sense, some children do not believe that it is appropriate to relate to members of the LGBTQIA+ community, as they are often perceived as people who are transgressing the rules. This attitude is present both toward homosexuals and transgender people:

• - You can’t get a boyfriend because boys have to date girls.
• - Because if he’s a boy, he has to dress like a boy.

Minors think it is not right to relate to people who are breaking the rules, considering that they must be punished for it. The demonstration of violence as a way of relating is mainly expressed through exclusion, rejection, and verbal violence.

Specifically, in homosexual minors, the participants’ testimonies indicate that they cannot have heterosexual friends in case they misinterpret the type of relationship. This situation occurs both in girls and boys. However, on the one hand, the rejection of a gay boy by boys has a connotation of repulsion, as observed in the example “Because, what do I know? They may feel something about you, how disgusting it is”. On the other hand, girls do not want to be friends with a lesbian girl for fear of her liking them and not knowing how to turn her down. The social nature of this attitude makes it mainly related to violent relational behaviors such as exclusion, rejection, and boycott of other people’s friendships. In general terms, transgender minors and homosexual boys are more rejected and left out than homosexual girls.

Finally, although a simplified analysis of the topics was made, it should be noted that the attitudes described can interact with each other in multiple situations or behaviors. In other words, a minor could be involved in violence toward the LGBTQIA+ community because they believe that violence is legitimate and, at the same time, try to be perceived as funny by the rest of their peers.

4. Discussion

This present study is an exploration of attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community in a Spanish sample and their relationship with different violent manifestations. Regarding our study hypotheses, from our results, it is shown that attitudes toward violence in this context are related to the use of violence as a form of fun, to feel better about oneself, when violence is perceived as legitimate, and as a way of relating. In addition, it is observed that homosexual boys and transgender minors are subject both to stronger negative attitudes and violent behaviors. No previous studies have been found that specifically explore this issue from a qualitative perspective. Nevertheless, Pina et al. [ 39 ] concluded in a study similar to ours that attitudes toward school violence in the general population are related to violence to feel better about oneself, as a form of leisure or fun, perceived as legitimate, when it targets those who are different, when it has no consequences, as a way of resolving conflicts, as a way of socializing, and as a way of attracting peers’ attention. These results are partially in line with ours, sharing four of the topics obtained. However, there are differences both in the type of behavior associated with the attitude and the intensity of these behaviors depending on the victim.

Along the lines of other studies, the results described herein provide evidence on the relationship attitude-behavior [ 19 , 42 ]. Furthermore, this is especially relevant in the population in which we performed this research, as, according to longitudinal and cross-sectional studies, when children and adolescents consider that face-to-face physical or relational aggression is appropriate, they engage more in these behaviors [ 43 , 44 ]. In this line, previous studies have found a two-way relationship between homophobic attitudes and aggressive behavior toward the LGBTQIA+ community [ 20 ]. Orue and Calvete [ 20 ] delved into the role of predictor variables of this relationship, such as exposure to homophobic violence at school, exposure to homophobic language at home, and social interaction with people who identify themselves as LGBTQIA+.

The attitude–behavior relationship has proven to be useful for the improvement of school climate and is one of the most effective factors in intervention/prevention programs [ 14 , 18 ]. Hence, our results can facilitate the creation and/or adaptation of these school violence reduction programs to improve the coexistence of LGBTQIA+ minors at school.

Concerning the topics obtained in our analysis, the interviewed minors referred to attitudes toward violence to feel better about themselves. This relationship between violence and self-esteem has been studied on multiple occasions. There seems to be some consensus in the literature about a deficit of self-esteem in minors involved in school violence [ 45 , 46 ]. For example, some cyber aggressors claim to have victimized their targets to feel better about themselves [ 47 , 48 ]. Beynon [ 49 ] suggested that minors felt the need to feel better about themselves, although this does not necessarily have to be associated with a deficit in self-esteem. We consider that our results refer to the latter idea; in other words, it does not seem that minors have a negative perception of themselves as much as a need to feel better or superior to the rest. This could happen especially when the minors’ self-esteem is not based on competencies, skills, or qualities in which they stand out.

Regarding attitudes toward violence as a form of fun, it is well-known that, in Western culture, there are countless examples in which, through television, movies, and/or video games, among others, such violence is used as a form of entertainment. Previous studies have indicated this type of attitude as an important predictor of violent behavior in the school context [ 23 ]. Generally, these types of attitudes are related to low-intensity violent behaviors such as name-calling or jokes [ 39 ]. Nevertheless, when these attitudes are aimed toward the LGBTQIA+ community, they seem to be associated with more emotionally charged behaviors, such as teasing, rumors, or ridicule. The relationship between violence and leisure in this collective has been studied previously. Ballard and Welch [ 50 ] contribute that, in the field of massively multiplayer online games, the members of the LGBTQIA+ community perpetrate fewer aggressions. However, they experience significantly higher rates of sex-related cyber-victimization.

Sometimes, beliefs shared by the group may legitimize violent attitudes and behaviors. These normative beliefs can function as a mediator of aggressive behavior [ 51 ]. These beliefs may be justified for various reasons, such as a minor being perceived as being different from what is expected of them according to what is socially established [ 39 ]. In this sense, although public opinion is increasingly in favor of diversity in terms of sexual orientation, this is not the case for transgender people and their rights [ 52 ]. In fact, public attitudes are significantly more negative toward transgender people than toward gays and lesbians [ 53 ]. Therefore, the greater the negative attitudes toward LGBTQIA+ people, the greater the legitimization of violence toward them [ 54 ]. This idea is reflected in our study, as participants have reported violence toward heterosexual, homosexual, and transgender minors differentially. That is, there is greater legitimization and, hence, violent behaviors of increasing intensity when the victim is homosexual or transgender. Among these groups, greater legitimization is perceived toward transgender minors, followed by homosexual boys, and, finally, homosexual girls. Among heterosexual boys, there is also greater legitimization if they have some characteristic (hair, clothes, etc.) that is more typical of the opposite sex. This type of group belief has been reflected in other qualitative studies with LGBTQIA+ minors [ 25 ].

In our results, we have also observed attitudes toward violence as a way of relating. Grossmann et al. [ 24 ] stated that school is one of the cultural institutions aimed at socializing and fitting into the community. As a result, in the attempt to achieve this objective, cultural values related to heterosexuality and gender-“appropriate” expression are fomented, rejecting those that do not follow them. Therefore, these authors point out the need for educational politics that ensure that schools promote the inherent value of each student, irrespective of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

The promotion of these values must include the identification of these supposedly legitimate attitudes toward the LGBTQIA+ community along the lines of what is reported in the literature. According to several authors, the legitimization of violence in the school context is the most strongly related factor to the manifestation of violent behavior [ 23 ].

Limitations and Recommendations for the Future

Qualitative studies have multiple limitations. For instance, it is not possible to generalize the results described here, so it would be interesting to replicate similar studies in other countries or social contexts. This type of work would allow us to explore similarities and differences with the results described here. Another limitation is the small sample size. Although qualitative studies are characterized by limited samples, it would be interesting to carry out studies particularly with primary school students or with secondary school students, specifically with larger sample sizes. In our opinion, it would be advisable to complement the results of our study with quantitative studies, either by applying or creating specific surveys of attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community or longitudinal studies that study the described variables over time. In addition, it would be interesting to add focus groups with members of the LGBTQIA+ community as participants to obtain a different and necessary point of view to understand school climate. Furthermore, our study does not seem to consider the possibility of reverse causal effects. Therefore, there is a possibility that violence against LGTBQI+ individuals may come from other students from the LGBTQIA+ community [ 25 ] and/or it may stem from reasons other than belonging to the group, for example, the use of illegal drugs, depression, risky behavior, etc. [ 5 ]. Future research should take into account this multi-causality to determine more accurately this problem.

5. Conclusions

Attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community in the school context are related to the use of violence as a form of fun, to feel better about oneself, when violence is perceived as legitimate and as a way of relating. Furthermore, homosexual boys and transgender minors are subject both to stronger negative attitudes and violent behaviors.

The results described here could have broad applicability to socio-community interventions. In terms of research, the qualitative approach to attitudes toward violence against the LGBTQIA+ community is a novel contribution to this field of study. This study provides evidence to the previous quantitative studies, allowing us to explore the specificity, complexity, and variety of attitudes. This study facilitates the understanding of school climate and school violence toward the LGBTQIA+ community.

Regarding socio-community intervention, our results suggest that it is important to include a change of attitude toward violence within the programs to improve coexistence in the academic area. As mentioned earlier, meta-analytic studies suggest that modification of attitudes toward violence is an effective perspective to improve the school climate [ 14 , 55 , 56 , 57 ].

Acknowledgments

This study was possible thanks to the participation of all members of the community of the participating centers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.P.; methodology, D.P.; validation, D.P. and J.A.R.-H.; formal analysis, D.P., B.A. and M.C.M.-T.; investigation, D.P. and B.M.-J.; resources, D.P. and J.A.R.-H.; data curation, D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.P., M.C.M.-T., R.L.-L. and A.M.-S.; writing—review and editing, D.P., M.C.M.-T., R.L.-L., A.M.-S., L.S.C., B.A. and J.A.R.-H.; funding acquisition, D.P. and B.M.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Murcia (ID: 2317/2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

School Violance: A Qualitative Case Study

No school violence prevention or safety program can be succeeded without the inclusion of the related parties’ meaning-making strategies. This qualitative study examines how school violence is understood by students and teachers, who are the two primary parties in any school environment. 27 teachers, one vice principle, and 125 students from 4th to 8th grades from a private school were asked to respond to open ended questions about their perceptions on the nature of violence in their school including reasons and the possible ways of prevention. Content analysis was used while analyzing the data. Integration of the results into the existing school violence program was discussed.

Related Papers

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Mike Furlong

The purpose of this article is to clarify the historical and definitional roots of school violence. Knowledge about this issue has matured to the point where there is a need to refine the definition of school violence, thereby positioning educators to take the next step in providing effective, broad-based solutions to this problem.The first section provides an overview of the definitional and boundary issues of the term "school violence" as used in research and applied prevention programs.The second section presents an overview of what is known about the occurrence of violent and related high-risk behaviors on school campuses. Information about the prevalence of school violence is reviewed to inform and guide violence prevention programs, emphasizing the need to implement programs that are well linked to known correlates of school violence.We believe that in addition to identifying the characteristics of both perpetrators and victims of violence at school, researchers need...

Carlesia Britt

Urban Education

George J Petersen

Over the years, school violence has gained attention due to an increase of aggressive behaviors and actions within school systems across the United States. As a result, it has prompted school districts to develop plans that address school violence efficiently to promote safe school environments. There is gap in current literature as it pertains to addressing school violence in the middle school setting. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of teachers and administrators concerning effective ways to implement proactive prevention strategies to attain better approaches to preventing school violence. This case study methodology were framed by Bronfenbrenner\u27s ecological theory to determine the association between school violence, students, parents, teachers, administrators, and other middle school staff members. Data were collected through 8 individual, structured, participant interviews with the use of an audio recorder. The resulting data were hand coded to create th...

Ruth Berkowitz , Hadass Moore

School violence can be understood as any behavior that is intended to harm other people at schools or near school grounds. This may include bullying and victimization, or more severe forms of violence involving weapons. To respond effectively to school violence, school personnel and leaders must understand the influences on their schools that come from individuals, the surrounding community, and cultural and political spheres. Careful and ongoing assessment of the needs of any given school is also a prerequisite to effective intervention. The severity of violence, the exact location of violent acts, and how different groups on a school campus experience violence are all key details to understanding and measuring problems. With this information, schools are then able to choose intervention programs that will utilize a whole-school approach. Sometimes, existing Evidence Based Programs can address the needs of a particular school and surrounding community. Other times, schools need to either modify existing interventions or create their own to address the particular forms of violence that exist in their schools and communities.

Journal of School Violence

Russell Skiba

Reece Peterson

George J. Petersen

Open Access Journal of Addiction and Psychology

NESTOR RAUL PORRAS VELASQUEZ

Cathy Hammond

RELATED PAPERS

Intensive care medicine

Richard Sharpe

Ahmed Fawzi

Brazilian Journalism Research

Fernando Oliveira Paulino

Stephanie Hallinger

nandang mufti

Interações (Campo Grande)

Cleonice Alexandre Le Bourlegat

intan zahar

Francesco Guidoboni

Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Monique Petitdidier

Der Pharmacia Lettre

Maha Lokman

Creative Mathematics and Informatics

Dr. Mengistu Goa Sangago

kwangsu kim

The Journal of Urology

Javier Romero-Otero

Aloma Revista De Psicologia Ciencies De L Educacio I De L Esport Blanquerna

Jurnal Pengabdian Al-Ikhlas

kasfianti zuhaenah

Francesca Damiani

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Tiago Antunes-lopes

Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

i rapporti pendenti nel fallimento e nelle soluzioni concordate di crisi

Alberto Valerio

Microelectronics Reliability

David Roulston

Argentine Journal of Cardiology

Ricardo Ronderos

Isti`dal : Jurnal Studi Hukum Islam

hasan anwar

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

Mathew J. Creighton

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Understanding the Causes of School Violence Using Open Source Data, United States, 1990-2016 (ICPSR 37935)

Version Date: Sep 30, 2021 View help for published

Freilich, Joshua D., Chermak, Steven M., and Connell, Nadine M. Understanding the Causes of School Violence Using Open Source Data, United States, 1990-2016. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2021-09-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37935.v1

Export Citation:

• RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Joshua D. Freilich , John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Steven M. Chermak , Michigan State University; Nadine M. Connell , Griffith University

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37935.v1

• At A Glance
• Export Metadata

Project Description

Alternate title view help for alternate title, summary view help for summary.

This study provides an evidence-based understanding on etiological issues related to school shootings and rampage shootings. It created a national, open-source database that includes all publicly known shootings that resulted in at least one injury that occurred on K-12 school grounds between 1990 and 2016. The investigators sought to better understand the nature of the problem and clarify the types of shooting incidents occurring in schools, provide information on the characteristics of school shooters, and compare fatal shooting incidents to events where only injuries resulted to identify intervention points that could be exploited to reduce the harm caused by shootings. To accomplish these objectives, the investigators used quantitative multivariate and qualitative case studies research methods to document where and when school violence occurs, and highlight key incident and perpetrator level characteristics to help law enforcement and school administrators differentiate between the kinds of school shootings that exist, to further policy responses that are appropriate for individuals and communities.

Citation View help for Citation

Funding view help for funding, subject terms view help for subject terms, geographic coverage view help for geographic coverage, smallest geographic unit view help for smallest geographic unit, restrictions view help for restrictions.

This data collection may not be used for any purpose other than statistical reporting and analysis. Use of these data to learn the identity of any person or establishment is prohibited. To protect respondent privacy, some of the data files in this collection are restricted from general dissemination. To obtain these restricted files researchers must agree to the terms and conditions of a Restricted Data Use Agreement.

Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)

Scope of project, time period(s) view help for time period(s), date of collection view help for date of collection, data collection notes view help for data collection notes.

Data for all incidents were compiled from the search for information from 60 unique search engines.

This study collected qualitative data that is not included in this release. Qualitative data will be included in a future update.

Methodology

Study purpose view help for study purpose.

The purpose of this study is to better understand the causes of school shootings, and to provide data that can be used to reduce the harm cased by shootings.

Study Design View help for Study Design

• Have occurred on or after January 1st, 1990.
• Have occurred in the United States.
• Lead to a criminal justice response.
• A gun must have been fired (including accidental discharge but not BB or pellet guns).
• Have occurred on K-12 school grounds (Parking lots, after school activities, and school busses are included. Bus stops, walking to school, pre-schools, universities, and school board meetings at non-school locations are excluded.)
• Involve at least one injury or death.

The investigators then employed a multi-tiered effort and reviewed existing databases, chronologies and listings, official records, law enforcement reports (e.g., from the FBI; NYPD; Secret Service), scholarly works (e.g., Hagan & Pah's database; Capellan's database; K-12 School Shooting Database; schoolshootingdatabase.com; schoolshooters.info, etc.), newspaper accounts/listings (for e.g., USA Today; Washington Post), other media's listings (e.g., CNN; NBC), online encyclopedias (e.g., Ballotpedia; Britannica; Wikipedia), blogs, and watch-groups/advocacy reports/listings (e.g., Brady Campaign; Everytown). The investigators also comprehensively searched and scraped the Internet and conducted keyword searches using major search engines like Google, Bing, and Yahoo, and leading newspapers like the New York Times, to locate relevant events.

Sample View help for Sample

All incidents identified from the universe and meet inclusion criteria.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe view help for universe.

All school shootings occurring on K-12 school grounds in the United States from 1990-2016.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data source view help for data source.

The data are compiled all publicly available information on the cases. The collected open source material includes media reports, government documents, court records, social media and other sources.

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of data collection view help for mode of data collection, description of variables view help for description of variables.

The variables describe the various characteristics of each school shooting. There is information about each perpetrator, including information about their motivations, whether or not they were a student at the school, some information on their home life and family history, and gang affiliation. There is also victim data, such as the number and severity of victims injuries, number of fatalities, and whether the victims were students or teachers. There is also information about the characteristics of each school, including the type of school and what violence prevention strategies were in place. Finally there is information on media coverage and police involvement in the aftermath of each shooting.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

Original release date view help for original release date, analysis information, weight view help for weight.

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions . Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.