Research on the Role of Family Influences on Aggression Indicates That

Introduction and state of the consequence

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural System (UNESCO, 2019) brought forth, at the 2019 World Education Forum, a study that reveals an increment in the cases of schoolhouse violence worldwide, since one in three students have been threatened by peers, and a similar proportion take been field of study to physical aggressions. School violence refers to any form of harassment or offense on a physical and psychological level among peers at schoolhouse (Leganés-Lavall, 2013), and it is a troubling problem because information technology raises schoolhouse dropout rates (Ruiz-Ramírez et al., 2018) and reduces the academic functioning of students (Cerda et al., 2019).

Assailment and bullying behaviors among students can be generated on a face-to-confront ground or online, through social media, and other types of internet-ready digital devices (cyberbullying). The reasons why school violence occurs are varied. Demographically speaking, for example, studies indicate that schoolhouse violence has gender-related differences (Jain et al., 2018; Machimbarrena & Garaigordobil, 2018), whereby physical harassment is a common exercise among boys, and psychological harassment is more frequent amongst girls (UNESCO, 2019).

Other studies have identified gender-related differences within the overlapping link between schools and cyberbullying (Baldry et al., 2017) and other related variables such as roles in cyberbullying, maternal advice, inductive bailiwick and psychological command (Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2018). In general terms, family, media and school environments all influence school violence (Cid et al., 2008).

In the family context, empirical show reveals that family surround (Calvete et al., 2018; Labella & Masten, 2018; Xia et al., 2018), intrafamily conflicts (Ortega-Barón et al., 2016) and hostile advice between parents and children (Aguirre, 2018; Boniel-Nissim & Sasson, 2018; Castañeda et al., 2019; Romero-Abrio et al., 2019) all influence aggressive behaviors in adolescence.

In the field of media, Gentile et al. (2011) were able to demonstrate how children's exposure to violent content in the media predicted an increase in aggressive behaviors and a subtract in prosocial behaviors throughout the school year. Hence, Al-Ali et al. (2018) consider that information technology is important for parents to heighten their cognition about media and broadcast content, then that they can play a protective role in their children's behavior.

Regarding the school environment, research indicates that school violence is related to school norms (Rey & Ortega, 2005) and students' social skills (Pérez, 2005). It has also been found that the schoolhouse environment is associated with students' well-being (Varela et al., 2019), and the relationships they build in school (Jain et al., 2018; Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2018) assist prevent school violence. In the case of cyberbullying, Ortega-Barón et al. (2016) detected that academic cocky-esteem is a predictor of victimization in adolescence.

Within the framework of intervention processes on school violence, experts have established the need for schools impacted by this consequence to generate greater levels of conviction within the educational customs to denounce peer victimization (Berger et al., 2017) and implement clinical care policies to back up victims (Cost et al., 2019). Accordingly, there are successful experiences such equally the "Asegúrate" (Be Safe) plan that focuses on strengthening the piece of work of faculty against cyberbullying past intervening in strategic areas such every bit the modes of communication amongst students on social media, the communication network's coexistence rules, and the criteria towards setting up safe friendships (Del-Rey-Alamillo et al., 2018).

Other experiences suggest that school violence decreases when tolerance principles are promoted and coexistence is improved through the reinforcement of communication and interaction amongst students (De-los-Pinos & González, 2012). In any example, communication has proven to be an effective resources to develop alternatives to violence equally long equally it allows students to learn to resolve conflicts peacefully and to adequately express their tensions or discrepancies (Jalón, 2005).

Therefore, strengthening interpersonal advice between students is an essential strategy to prevent school violence. This is confirmed past Estévez et al. (2007) when they revealed that adolescents with lower levels of violent behavior at schoolhouse are characterized by having positive communication with their parents and more favorable attitudes towards institutional government such every bit school administrators and faculty. Valdez-Cuervo et al. (2018), in turn, have indicated that teaching practices are related to peer violence at schoolhouse due to their outcome on the school environs and empathy. In other words, teachers and the school, in general, play an important part in the prevention of schoolhouse violence. Enquiry by Doumas and Midgett (2018) precisely shows, at a pedagogical level, that a positive school environment fostered by faculty contributes to reducing victimization and harassment. Information technology is known that the level of justice imparted by the kinesthesia and their interaction with their students influence the relationship betwixt unfairly treated victims' sensitivity and the altruistic behavior of students (Jiang et al., 2019). However, despite this loftier menstruation of literature, empirical bear witness on the communicational role of teachers in the face of school violence is nonetheless scarce. In addition, studies on how communication betwixt teachers and students (pedagogical advice) and betwixt parents and children (family advice) can jointly influence over aggressive behaviors at schoolhouse are in brusk supply. This article offers novel empirical evidence through two objectives that contribute to the analysis of schoolhouse violence from a communicational perspective: one) Place whether schoolhouse violence among adolescents and the interpersonal communication they have established with their parents and teachers testify differences related to gender; ii) Decide the influence of family unit and pedagogical communication on aggressive adolescents and victims of school violence.

Methodology

The inquiry carried out was exploratory and correlational; following a non-experimental, analytical and cantankerous-sectional design.

Participants

The discipline population of this report were adolescents at the secondary and center school didactics levels in Republic of colombia, which comes to approximately 4,709,538 students, according to Colombia's Ministry of National Education. A sample was selected by quotas of 1,082 adolescents (Z=1,96; VM=0,25) between 14 and eighteen years of age (M=15,61; SD=0,90). These adolescents attended schools identified, per the work of Jiménez and Jiménez (2018), as institutions impacted by frequent cases of schoolhouse violence.

Gender was the quota established to split the sample as (50% men and fifty% women), since, according to UNESCO (2019), this variable is associated with school violence. The selection of participants was made intentionally on a conglomerate basis, thus seeking representativeness in terms of both gender and age also as levels of schooling. The sample size reflected the interest in reducing the error margin from v% to iii%, due to the type of sampling carried out and the sociodemographic characteristics of this population.

Instruments

The information was gathered through a questionnaire comprised by 3 reliable scales: The School Violence Intensity Scale (VES) by Jiménez and Jiménez (2018), the Parent-Adolescent Advice Calibration (PACS) past Barnes and Olson (1982) and the Student-Teacher Advice Calibration (ECD) by Gauna (2004). The VES scale identifies, within a range of 1 (never) to v (very often), physical and verbal aggressions (for example, shoves, blows, mocking comments and insults) suffered by and generated against others in school. These attacks among adolescents explain, at a rate of 66%, the full variance of schoolhouse violence. The overall internal consistency of this calibration displayed an acceptable Cronbach'due south blastoff of 0.75.

The PACS scale evaluates, within a range of one (never) to 5 (ever), communication between parents and children. In this study, a version comprised of seven items was used, three of which evaluate offensive family advice (for case, «My parents tell me things that hurt me»), and the remaining iv items evaluate open family communication (for example, «I can talk to my parents about what I remember without feeling bad or uncomfortable»). The internal consistency of this scale was 0.71 for the offensive family communication gene, and 0.85 for the open family communication factor. Both factors explicate parental communication by 61%.

The ECD scale has seven items that assess, within a range of 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally concord), the teacher'southward advice in the classroom (for case, «The teacher's communication with the students is based on the highlighting of achievements, not mistakes»).

The overall internal consistency of this calibration was 0.78. The items explain, by 61%, the total variance of the verbal pedagogical advice perceived by adolescents. These scales were called based on their reliability, and the original evaluation grade was maintained. In the example of the VES Scale, its greatest reward is that it has been adapted to the population nether study (Jiménez & Jiménez, 2018). The PACS Scale, compared to others, was created for the adolescent population and has been used in studies on school violence showing skillful statistical behavior (Estévez et al., 2007; Castañeda et al., 2019; Romero-Abrio et al., 2019). The ECD Scale focuses on the teacher's pedagogical communication in the classroom, thus differentiating itself from other questionnaires that traditionally focus on the instructor-educatee interpersonal relationship (Zapata et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2019), which has been widely studied.

Procedure

The information was collected with the informed consent of the parents and directors of each school. Adolescents were trained on how to fill out the questionnaire, and, in that process, all their concerns were tackled. The questionnaire was administered contiguous. The data obtained were processed with the SPSS v23 statistical software.

Data analysis

To achieve the outset objective of this investigation, the Student T test and the Isle of man-Whitney U exam were applied in order to determine gender differences in school violence among adolescents, as well as in the advice they maintain with their parents and teachers. The levels ​​of the aggressions suffered and generated by the adolescents in school were previously averaged, and the scores from the indicators of family and pedagogical communication were added. Similarly, 3 levels of communication (low, moderate and high) were set based on the minimum (MIN), and maximum (MAX) dispersion values equally well as the xxx (P30) and seventy (P70) percentiles.

The second objective that determines the influence of family unit and pedagogical communication on offending adolescents and victims was achieved by applying Spearman's correlation examination between the communication factors and the aggressions evaluated. A multiple regression analysis comprised of the variables that showed a significant correlation was implemented. The statistical procedure carried out matches the causality criteria set by Hill (2015), who claims that statistical clan is the first requirement towards establishing causality. Later applying collinearity tests, seven predictors were included. This number is appropriate for the sample size and for estimating medium-sized effects (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Results

The findings achieved from the two objectives outlined in this report are laid out in this section.

Gender-related differences between school violence and family and pedagogical communication

This study institute that 70% of adolescents had suffered physical and exact aggressions at school and admitted to having assaulted their classmates at to the lowest degree one time. The remaining 30% claimed to have never been the victim of physical or verbal attacks or having assaulted other peers at school.

Upon implementation of the Pupil T test, significant differences were plant between school violence and the adolescents' gender. Men were, on average, more frequent victims of physical and verbal aggressions in school (K=1,89; SD= 0,74; p=0,00; Cohen's d=0,28) compared to women (K=i,69; SD=0.67). Besides, men reported existence more ambitious on average (One thousand=two,35; SD= 0,92; p=0,00; Cohen'southward d= 0,24) than women (M=i,93; DE=0,87). Inside the context of communication, the data in Tabular array 1 signal that the communication of parents and teachers with adolescents happens virtually ofttimes between depression and moderate levels. The Isle of mann Whitney U exam identified significant differences between the gender of adolescents and the levels of family and pedagogical communication. In this case, the finding was that women scored significantly lower (64.1%) than men (35.1%) at the level of verbal communication with their teachers (p=0.00; r-Rosenthal=−0.08).

In terms of offensive communication between parents and children (p=0.00; r-Rosenthal=−0.07), women scored college (57.6%) than men (42.iv%). Regarding open up family communication, although at that place were no meaning gender-related differences (p=0.09; r-Rosenthal=−0.05), adolescent women scored lower (47.vi%) than men (52.4%).

Influence of family and pedagogical communication on offending teenagers and victims

In the «Open Family Advice» factor, the brownie of parents correlated significantly (p=0,00) and negatively with the aggressions generated by adolescents against others in school. Within this same factor, it was found that parents' willingness to pay attending to their children correlated significantly (p=0,00) and negatively with the aggressions suffered (school victimization).

In the «Offensive Family unit Communication» gene, information technology was established that the deed of speaking aggressively to children (p=0,04) and telling them harmful things (p=0,00) correlated significantly and positively with victimization.

In the educational setting, within the «Pedagogical Advice» factor, it was establish that the employ of communication by teachers in order to instill subject in students inside the classroom (p=0,00) correlated significantly and negatively with the aggressions caused. The employ of communication by teachers to bring out students' achievements and not their mistakes (p=0,04) and to brand them realize the importance of studying and learning (p=0,04) correlated significantly and negatively with victimization.

The post-obit image (Figure one) shows the indicators for the variables nether report that correlated significantly with school violence.

A regression assay applied to the above variables, which held a significant correlation, significantly immune us to identify the predictors of family and pedagogical communication that influence schoolhouse violence among adolescents.

The values in Tabular array 2 betoken out that family and pedagogical communication influences schoolhouse violence amidst adolescents, predicting eight.five% of tearing behavior and 11.half dozen% of victimization. Specifically, it was determined that offensive communication between parents and children, characterized by maxim harmful things (β=0.22**) and hostile speech (β= 0.16*), significantly forecasts an increased victimization.

The regression assay revealed, by the same token, that teachers' pedagogical advice focused on making adolescents perceive the importance of studying and learning (β=−0.12*) significantly predicts a decrease in victimizations. Communication between teachers and students aimed at instilling adept subject field (β=−0.29***) was the only significant predictor that showed a reduction in violent school beliefs.

Discussion

The main objective of our study was to determine the influence of family unit and pedagogical communication on offending adolescents and victims of school violence. A discussion is hereinafter laid out betwixt this study'southward own findings and those of other studies in club to point out similarities, contributions and empirical limitations.

In general terms, information technology was found that the communication of parents and teachers with adolescent students' ranges from low to moderate levels. That is, family unit and pedagogical communication is deficient within this context, which is affected by problems of school violence. For this reason, parents and affected schools need to meliorate interpersonal communication with students. The in a higher place is fifty-fifty more truthful when studies reveal that emotional ties between students and adults in school (Jain et al., 2018), advice aimed at pedagogy students how to peacefully resolve their conflicts (Jalón, 2005) and the involvement of families in the prevention of school violence (Valdez-Cuervo et al., 2018) effectively contribute to the reduction of peer aggressions.

On the other manus, we take identified that aggressions amongst adolescents in school and the communication they maintain with their parents and teachers displayed significant differences in terms of gender. In such a example, men were more probable than women to be offenders and victims. On the other mitt, at the communication level, women were more than likely than men to receive insults from their parents and to exert a lower level of communication with their teachers.

Our findings related to gender lucifer those of various studies that reveal how schoolhouse violence is exercised differently amidst men and women (Machimbarrena & Garaigordobil, 2018; Jain et al., 2018; UNESCO, 2019); such findings also prove that gender differences permeate the field of family unit and pedagogical communication. Such aspects are present in Linares et al. (2019), who point to the manner in which family and cultural issues associated with sexism and gender inequalities coexist backside cyberbullying among adolescents. In this context, education in terms of equality is relevant as an essential value towards preventing gender violence (Gallardo & Gallardo, 2019), especially because gender is associated with the roles played in harassment on both face-to-face and virtual interactions (Baldry et al., 2017) and intervenes in the relationship betwixt adolescents' perception of parental practices and participation in cyberbullying (Gómez-Ortiz et al., 2018).

In reference to the master objective, we have establish a relationship betwixt school violence and communication between parents and children. Significant correlations indicate that when family unit advice is open, victimization decreases, besides as the likelihood of adolescents adopting aggressive behaviors; even so, when communication is offensive, the probability of victimization rises.

The regression analysis showed that offensive family communication is a predictor of victimization. This upshot is consequent with the study past Romero-Abrio et al. (2019) that associates victimization in adolescence with problematic family communication. Accordingly, this coincides with the works of Aguirre (2018) and Castañeda et al. (2019) that point out how open communication with both the father and female parent correlates negatively with school victimization; while offensive parental communication correlates positively with victimization.

Research by Xia et al. (2018) enables a meliorate understanding of our findings by showing that adolescents who were discipline to domestic violence were more than probable to accept vehement norms and be exposed to peer aggressions, which increased the likelihood of aggression and victimization in their life. In this respect, Labella and Masten (2018) claim that the family unit is an adaptation arrangement that affects violent behaviors in children or can prevent them if it provides warmth and healthy behaviors.

On the other hand, novel data were found to indicate that communication betwixt teachers and students with a focus on generating subject field in the classroom is a predictor of reduced aggressive beliefs in schoolhouse. Subject field refers to the prepare of procedures, rules and norms that teachers implement to maintain order in the school (Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2010).

Diverse studies warn that, when bailiwick collapses, conflicts between students increase (Mayora et al., 2012) too equally antisocial behaviors at school (Pérez, 2005). Our findings reaffirm the essential function of discipline in counteracting school violence. In this particular regard, at that place are correlated studies that highlight coexistence rules (Del-Rey-Alamillo et al., 2018) and teachers' assistance as variables that reduce cyberbullying in adolescents (Ortega-Barón et al., 2016).

The work by Valdez-Cuervo et al. (2018) underscores the relevance of non-permissive didactics practices and the participation of teachers in strategies such every bit direct interventions and meetings with offenders as effective resource to curtail school violence.

Another novel pedagogical finding was that teachers' communication focused on bringing out students' achievements correlated significantly with a reduction in victimization. This is due to the fact that this blazon of communication contributes to improve academic self-esteem, which, in plow, reduces victimization (Ortega-Barón et al., 2016). Therefore, children with low self-esteem are more prone to become victims of harassment (Van-Geel et al., 2018).

Lastly, we established the fact that teacher advice in the classroom is a predictor that reduces school victimization equally long as it leads students to realize the importance of studying and learning. This finding stresses the relevance of pedagogical advice to avoid school violence when it generates significant learning that makes students enlightened of the importance of didactics. This is related to what was claimed by Boggino (2005), who, addressing the prevention of school violence, proposed organizing instructor training to favor meaningful student learning past addressing specific and contextualized issues, agile participation and the generation of concepts, values ​​and social norms.

It is relevant to note that, although the influence of family and pedagogical communication on school violence was low (betwixt viii.5 and xi.6 percentage of the total variance), it is similar to that of other related studies confirming the multicausal nature of this miracle. From the above, the following stand out: the piece of work of Boniel-Nissim and Sasson (2018) that shows how family communication predicts victimization at 4% of the total variance also every bit that of Ortega et al. (2016), which points out the manner in which family cohesion, academic self-esteem, family disharmonize, assertiveness and teacher support predict cyberbullying victimization between half dozen.2% and 9.7%.

Conclusions and recommendations

Our study contributes to the assay of schoolhouse violence from a communicational standpoint. The findings obtained let us to conclude, firstly, that gender makes a deviation in the style in which school violence is exercised amongst adolescents and in the type of communication students hold with their parents and teachers. We suggest, on the basis of the nowadays study, new studies that explore the role of pedagogical communication against gender violence in schools. Information technology is known that teachers' antibullying beliefs is associated with low levels of victimization (Doumas & Midgett, 2018). In turn, schoolhouse confidence increases when students notice that their teachers have cosmetic measures against gender violence on the basis of sexual orientation and abstain from making alienating comments (Berger et al., 2017).

Secondly, we conclude that family and pedagogical communication influences the victimization and aggressive behavior of adolescents in school. Empirical bear witness leads us to infer that offensive family communication is a risk factor for school violence, whereas open up communication by parents and teachers with teenagers really serves equally a protective factor to reduce or avert such violence. This result is related to the theories of Estévez et al. (2007), who assure that there is an association betwixt parental advice and school violence, and betwixt teachers' expectations and students' attitude towards institutional authorisation, which is strongly linked to violent behavior.

All aspects indicated in this written report reveal the demand to strengthen communication and the family-school human relationship to accomplish better results in the implementation of prevention and intervention strategies for school violence, as confirmed by some successful intervention programs in this field (De-los-Pinos & González, 2012; Del-Rey-Alamillo et al., 2018).

Based on our findings and the inquiry by Gentile et al. (2011), which indicates how mass media influence school violence, we advise new studies to determine if open family communication intervenes every bit a protective factor in the relationship between children'due south exposure to violent media content and ambitious behaviors.

We advise, at the educational level, that a written report is carried out to assess whether pedagogical communication is more than effective as an intervention in schoolhouse violence when mediated by the relationships between teachers and students, as well as by the justice dispensed by the teacher against acts of indiscipline. This proposal is based on the study of Jiang et al. (2019) that reveals how justice from teachers strengthens the bond with their students and influences the relationship between victim sensitivity and altruism.

Nosotros highlight, as a limitation of this written report, the fact that but urban adolescents participated in the sample. For this reason, other studies that clarify schoolhouse violence in rural institutions are required, since, in the Colombian case, the impact of the internal armed conflict has been different for those 2 contexts (Ospina-Ramírez et al., 2018). However, this article is one of the first empirical developments towards assessing, on a joint ground, the part of pedagogical and family unit communication against school violence. 1

References

3. Jiang, Due south, Liu, R D, Ding, Y, Oei, T P, Fu, 10 & Hong, W . 2019. Victim sensitivity and altruistic behavior in school: Mediating effects of teacher justice and teacher-pupil human relationship. Frontiers in Psychology x:1077.

5. R.C., Castañeda,, S.Grand., Fadda,, G.Chiliad., Ochoa, & J.E., Jerónimo, . 2019. Comunicación con los padres, malestar psicológico y actitud hacia la autoridad en adolescentes mexicanos: Su influencia en la victimización escolar. Estudios sobre Educación 26:113–134.

11. P., Cid,, A., Díaz,, K.5., Pérez,, M., Torruella, & M., Valderrama, . 2008. Agresión y violencia en la escuela como gene de riesgo del aprendizaje escolar. Ciencia y Enfermería 14(ii):21–30.

25. M., Van-Geel,, A., Goemans,, Due west., Zwaanswijk,, Grand., Gini, & P., Vedder, . 2018. Does peer victimization predict low cocky-esteem, or does low self-esteem predict peer victimization? Meta-analyses on longitudinal studies. Developmental Review 49:31–40.

34. O., Gómez-Ortiz,, E., Romera,, R., Ortega-Ruiz, & R., Del-Rey-Alamillo, . 2018. Parenting practices equally adventure or preventive factors for adolescent interest in cyberbullying: Contribution of children and parent gender. International Journal of Ecology Research and Public Health xv(12):2664.

40. Varela, Jorge J., Sirlopú, David, Melipillán, Roberto, Espelage, Dorothy, Green, Jennifer & Guzmán, Javier . 2019. Exploring the influence schoolhouse climate on the relationship between school violence and adolescent subjective well-being. Child Indicators Inquiry 12(l):1–xvi.

41. Jain, Sonia, Cohen, Alison K., Paglisotti, Taylor, Subramanyam, Malavika A., Chopel, Alison & Miller, Elizabeth . 2018. Schoolhouse climate and physical adolescent relationship abuse: Differences past sex, socioeconomic status, and bullying. Journal of Adolescence 66:71–82.

43. R., Del-Rey-Alamillo,, J.A., Mora-Merchán,, J.A., Casas,, R., Ortega-Ruiz, & P., Elipe, . 2018. 'Asegúrate' Program: Effects on cyber-aggression and its chance factors. [Programa «Asegúrate»: Efectos en ciberagresión y sus factores de riesgo] Comunicar 26:39–48.

greenforejusell.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.revistacomunicar.com/html/63/en/63-2020-07.html

Share this post