The interconnected school context: Meta-analyses of the associations between peer aggression involvement and teacher-student relationship closeness

Abstract

A growing body of literature has documented the contribution of teacher-student relationship quality to both persistence and reduction in peer aggression incidents in the school context. The research literature indicates that students who are involved in peer aggression also tend to experience lower levels of closeness in their relationships with their teachers. However, these study results have not yet been aggregated, and the size and direction of effects remains unclear. In the present study we quantitatively synthesized 66 individual studies (Nstudents = 352,376) in two meta-analyses by aggregating cross-sectional associations between peer aggression involvement and teacher-student relationship closeness that have been reported in the literature over the last 20 years. A small, negative, and significant association was found between perpetration and victimization and teacher-student relationship closeness, indicating that students who experience greater involvement in peer aggression also have relationships with their teachers that are lacking in closeness. Three moderator analyses were also conducted. No moderating effect was found for school level or measure type; however, a significant moderating effect was found for informant type. The results from the meta-analyses lead to direct recommendations for practice regarding how we can best support students’ psychosocial development in the school context.

Keywords

peer aggression perpetration victimization teacher-student relationship meta-analysis

A growing body of literature indicates the influential role of the teacher-student relationship (TSR) in the social-emotional well-being of children and youth (Lavy & Naama-Ghanayim, 2020; see Sabol & Pianta, 2012 for a review). It appears that the TSR may be especially important in relation to students’ involvement in peer aggression, including bullying. For the present meta-analyses, the term ‘peer aggression involvement’ includes both perpetration (i.e., committing aggressive acts towards peers) and victimization (i.e., receiving aggressive acts from peers). Continuing research on the associations—both positive and negative—between these variables is critical, given that peer aggression remains a pervasive and persistent global public health problem with roughly one in three children reporting that they experienced peer victimization in the previous month (UNESCO, 2019). It is now widely accepted that involvement in peer aggression has many negative effects for children and youth. Several studies have documented links between perpetration and victimization experiences and various mental health issues (e.g., depression, anxiety), poor physical health, and later substance use (Moore et al., 2018). TSRs have emerged as a possible explanation of both the persistence and the mitigation of involvement in peer aggression in school contexts. By synthesizing the available literature that examines the relationship between involvement in peer aggression and TSR closeness, the present meta-analyses offer robust empirical evidence of the quantitative link between these variables, and it points to possible avenues of remediation to the issue of peer aggression and bullying in schools.

Teacher-Student relationships

The Bioecological Model of development posits that development occurs within a set of interconnected social-cultural environments that reciprocally interact with the child (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). It has commonly been used to explain the adverse psychosocial consequences on children that are associated with involvement in peer aggression as well as how social contexts, including, for example, relationships that form between students and their teachers, can reduce the incidence and the impacts of peer aggression involvement (Bouchard & Smith, 2017; Wang et al., 2015). The most proximate of the model systems is the microsystem, which comprises the direct interactions that children have with important people in their lives, including family, peers, teachers, and so on. At the next level is the mesosystem, which forms when people from different microsystems containing the developing child interact. For the current study, we situate our analysis of TSRs and involvement in peer aggression at the level of the mesosystem, as classrooms provide numerous opportunities for mesosystems comprising teachers and peers to form and to mutually influence one another.

From this bioecological perspective, social referencing theory is a useful explanation of one potential mechanism by which teachers may influence students’ behaviours in their peer group, including peer aggression involvement (Hughes & Chen, 2011). In brief, social reference theory suggests that students use their teachers as a social reference to inform how students should treat their peers, effectively mirroring to a peer the qualities they perceive in that peer's relationship with the teacher. While some longitudinal research suggests bidirectional links between TSR quality and involvement in peer aggression (e.g., Holfeld & Leadbeater, 2017; Serdiouk et al., 2016), it seems that the teacher is the driving influence in the association between the two constructs. (e.g., Hendrickx et al., 2016). This teacher influence seems to be especially true for conflictual interactions between the teacher and student where students are more likely to dislike their peer if they perceive that their teacher dislikes them.

Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969) has also been frequently used to describe how TSRs affect levels of peer aggression involvement. Attachment theory describes the psychosocial development of children within the context of caregiving relationships and offers a useful framework to understanding the quality of relationships that can form between students and teachers. According to Attachment Theory, the dynamics of early relations with caregivers—specifically the levels of sensitivity and attunement they direct toward the child—lead the child to develop an internal working model of relationships (including expectations and core beliefs) that roughly divide between models of secure and insecure attachment. This implies, and research offers some supportive evidence, that the quality of TSRs is related, at least in part, to parental attachment history (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). However, the theory also suggests that non-parental relationships, including those that form between teachers and students, can themselves form into attachment relationships that are at least partially independent from parental attachment histories, and thereby contribute to shaping or revising children's internal relational models (Davis, 2003). Revised models that favour secure attachment in the TSR can then serve to guide behaviour that subsequently contributes to the formation of high-quality peer relationships (Gest & Rodkin, 2011).

Closeness

Generally, TSR quality has been measured on three discrete characteristics: closeness, conflict, and dependency (Sabol & Pianta, 2012). For the purposes of this paper, we exclusively focus on aspects of closeness. TSRs that have high levels of closeness consist of adult involvement that conveys warmth, care, and support for the child (Bouchard & Smith, 2017). Close relationships between teachers and students have been associated with positive outcomes, including increased social competence and academic achievement, as well as lower levels of internalizing behaviour (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004). Several studies have explored the role of perceived closeness between teachers and students in peer aggression involvement. In younger student populations (i.e., grades 3–5), both cross-sectional and longitudinal research shows that relationships with teachers characterized by closeness are positively associated with peer acceptance and negatively associated with relational and physical aggression and peer victimization (Kremer, 2010; Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011). Additionally, teacher-ratings of TSR quality have been found to be predictive of peer-rated student aggression levels in the following academic year (Hughes et al., 1999). Specifically, positive teacher ratings of their relationships with their students in grades 2–4 were associated with reduced rates of peer-rated aggression in the subsequent academic year (e.g., grades 4–5), even when controlling for pre-existing aggression levels. Similar findings have been found in older student populations. In a large-scale cross-sectional study including over 18,000 middle-school students from France, findings revealed that schools who reported more positive TSRs overall also reported lower rates of both physical and relational bullying involvement (Richard et al., 2011).

Within the closeness construct is the concept of social support. Supportive social relationships, including those with teachers, can create a sense of stability and predictability in one's environment and foster a sense of belonging and integration, lending to more frequent positive experiences of self and other for the child (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Supportive TSRs have been found to have a negative correlation with involvement in peer aggression. For example, findings from a study with over 10,000 Israeli students in middle school and high school indicated that rates of peer victimization were lower for students who also reported having a supportive relationship with their teacher (Marachi et al., 2007).

However, it is important to note that close TSRs have not always been found to be significantly associated with peer aggression involvement. In a study investigating the role of TSR quality and its association with peer victimization in fourth and fifth grade students, Elledge et al. (2016) found that close TSRs did not predict a reduction in peer victimization when student social preference (i.e., degree to which student is liked and/or disliked by their peers) was controlled. Additionally, a study completed by Pabian and Vandebosch (2016), with over 2000 early adolescent participants (those in middle and early secondary school), did not find any significant linkages between teacher-student bonding (i.e., a sense of support and connection between teacher and student) and bullying at school. There is some research to suggest that a subset of students who aggress against their peers are experienced as likeable and socially competent, lending to more positive relationships with teachers (Vaillancourt et al., 2003). These particular studies raise questions about the strength and direction of the association between close TSRs and involvement in peer aggression among students.

Moderating variables

Research has documented multifaceted trends in the relationship between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness as a function of students’ developmental age. For example, a review by Berger (2007) outlines several studies that found physical bullying decreases in high school, but more covert forms of bullying (e.g., verbal, social, and cyberbullying) increase with age, particularly during middle school years (Grade 6–9) (Due et al., 2005). Regarding TSR closeness, literature indicates that younger students tend to view their relationship with their teachers as more positive, compared to older students (Havik, 2017; Serdiouk et al., 2016). It is also well established that as children age their relationships with peers take increasing importance in their lives (Brown & Larson, 2009). Additionally, students in upper grades (e.g., Grade 7 and above) often have several teachers with whom they interact throughout the day rather than a single homeroom teacher. This too, may influence the observed association between involvement in peer aggression and TSR quality. It is for these reasons that school level, a proxy for developmental age, was included as a moderator in our analyses.

Multiple informants are often used in measuring peer aggression and TSR quality (Richard et al., 2011; Runions & Shaw, 2013; Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011) given the reporting limitations associated with each type of informant. For example, social desirability may influence self-reports of peer aggression involvement (Volk et al., 2017). It is also known that some systematic reporting differences exist between informants when reporting involvement in peer aggression (Demaray et al., 2013; Stockdale et al., 2002), which is often explained in terms of varying opportunities that different informants have to witness actual peer aggression (Rupp et al., 2018). Given these trends, we decided to include informant type as a moderator in our analysis.

As the final moderator, we will assess the influence of type of measure. Many of the measures used to investigate peer aggression involvement and TSR quality are well-established and extensively validated (Kimberlin & Winterstein, 2008). However, many studies nonetheless included newly created measures that have very limited validity and reliability data compared to the established measures. Consequently, we decided to compare effect sizes based on well-established measures versus novel measures of our key variables.

The current study

The objective of our meta-analyses is to quantitatively synthesize the size and direction of the association between TSR closeness and students’ involvement in peer aggression, namely as perpetrators and as victims. We expected that students who perpetrate against their peers or who are victimized will also have relationships with their teachers that are low in closeness. Peer perpetration and victimization were investigated independently. We divided the analyses in this way since the peer aggression literature routinely and reliably divides children into various roles related to peer aggression involvement (Yang & Salmivalli, 2013). Scholarship also documents unique outcomes related to peer aggression involvement for students who are victimized and students who perpetrate against others (Ttofi & Farrington, 2008). Additionally, we examined the impact of moderating variables (e.g., school level, informant type, and measure type) on the association between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness. We expected that all three moderator analyses would help explain the heterogeneity across studies. Regarding the school level moderator, we anticipated a stronger association between TSR closeness and peer aggression involvement for younger students compared to older students given that younger students are more dependent on adults in their lives and spend greater amounts of the school day with a single teacher (Wang et al., 2015). Given the limited research indicating how informant or measure type may influence the correlation between involvement in peer aggression and TSR closeness, these two analyses are exploratory in nature.

Methodology

Study selection and screening

A systematic literature search was performed in September 2019 to identify all relevant literature. Four online databases were accessed: ERIC, PsycINFO, Education Source, and ProQuest (for theses and dissertations only). A combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and key words were used to reliably access relevant literature. Some examples of MeSH terms include: relational aggression and teacher student relationship. Some examples of key words used include: peer harass* and teacher adj2 student adj2 relation* (see supplemental material for a full description of the systematic literature search strategy). Backward and forward referencing searches were also completed to ensure all possible studies on the topic were identified. At the end of the search process, there were a total of 816 unique research reports identified for this study. These reports were then uploaded onto an online systematic review manager (i.e., Covidence) for screening.

To be included in the meta-analyses, all studies must have included a quantitative and continuous measure of student peer aggression involvement, either perpetration or victimization, from a student (self), teacher, and/or peer informant that was completed in the school context. Peer aggression involvement, in the context of this study, included aspects of bullying and victimization, as well as other forms of peer aggression (e.g., reactive aggression) that do not necessarily fit within the confines of the traditional bullying definition. We included all forms of peer aggression involvement, including physical, verbal, vandalism, and cyber, that occurred in the context of an interpersonal interaction, and we excluded measures of aggression that targeted objects or animals. An important role identified in the peer aggression literature is the bully-victim role, which comprises students who both aggress against others and are victimized themselves. Due to key differences between students who both perpetrate and are victimized and students who only perpetrate against others or are purely victimized, it would be necessary to examine these roles in separate analyses, however, insufficient number of studies that reported on this specific group of students prevented us from doing so. Additionally, all studies must also have included a quantitative and continuous measure of TSR closeness from either the student (self), teacher, and/or peer informant that was completed in the school context. Measures that assessed positive aspects of TSRs were included (e.g., Aceves et al., 2009; Espelage et al., 2014), such as aspects of support, trust, warmth, and mutual liking. Finally, all studies needed to include individual-level statistics, have study participants who were in grades k-12, and include a correlation coefficient effect size or other statistic that could be transformed into one.

The first author was the primary reviewer during the screening process. When it was not clear whether a study fit within the predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, a consensus decision was made following a discussion between the two authors. After all studies were screened and assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 66 studies remained. See Figure 1 for a description of the selection and screening process.

Figure 1.
PRISMA diagram of study selection process.

Study coding process

See Table 1 for a list of all included studies and their characteristics. The first author coded the entire set of 66 studies. A second coder, a graduate student completing a master's degree in education and who had no knowledge of the study purpose, was trained on how to identify and code each study characteristic. The second coder coded 19 studies (>28%) of the final set of studies to ensure inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater agreement was computed by matching the coding of both raters and calculating the number of agreements against the total number of comparisons. Overall inter-rater agreement was excellent at 97% percent.

Table 1.
Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analyses.

Sample Characteristics Measurement Characteristics Effect Size

Authors N Country School Level Gender Ethnicity PA Measure PA Informant TSRclos Measure TSR Informant r

Aceves et al., 2009 148 USA Middle; Secondary 49.3% female 76 (51.5%) Latino, 36 (24.2%) Asian American, 28 (18.9) African American, 8 (5.3%) other (including Caucasian, Middle Eastern, or mixed ethnicity) Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006) to measure pro-active peer aggression Self Trust In and Respect For Teacher Scale (Battistich et al., 2004) to assess students appraisals of TSRQ Self -.277 (P)

Akiba et al., 2010 2970 Japan Middle; Secondary Created own measure to assess victimization and bullying behaviour Self Created own measures to assess Teacher Bonding, Student guidance, and Instructional support Self -.113 (P).107 (V)

Bacchini et al., 2009 734 Italy Middle; Secondary 50.1% female Olweus Bully victim questionnaire (Olweus 1986 1996) to assess frequency of victimization and perpetration Self Created own measure to assess student perceived relationship with teacher, and if teacher has favourites Self -.090 (P).070 (V)

Bae et al., 2018 313 South Korea Middle; Secondary 51.6% female 148 (59%) of sample were of ethnic minority (at least 1 foreign born parent); Other half were of Korean ethnicity Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (modified version; Harel-Fisch et al., 2011; Olweus, 2007) to assess frequency of victimization and perpetration Self Student's Perceived Relationship with Teachers to assess teacher support and care of student (Harel-Fisch et al., 2011) Self -.273 (P)-.355(V)

Bardack & Obradovic, 2017 89 USA Elementary 52% female 59% minority status (25% Hispanic/Latino, 19% Asian, 12% Multiracial/ other, 3% Black) MacArthur Health and Behaviour Questionnaire (Armstrong & Goldstein, 2003) to assess relational aggression Teacher Teacher-child closeness scale (Armstrong & Goldstein, 2003) adopted from STRS to assess teacher's perceptions of closeness with individual child Teacher -.020 (P)

Beran, 2009 794 Canada Middle; Secondary 49.8% female Survey developed for National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Statistics Canada, 1999) to measure frequency of victimization and bullying behaviour Self Survey developed for National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Statistics Canada, 1999) perceived support from teachers and fair treatment Self -.288 (P)

Boulton et al., 2012 364 United Kingdom Elementary 46.7% female Peer nominations with items derived from previous studies (e.g., Boulton & Smith, 1994) to assess variety of bullying experiences Peer Created own scale to measure TSR on positive aspects only Self -.141(V)

Boyesen & Bru, 1999 1071 Norway Middle; Secondary Created own measure to assess harassment of others and exposure to harassment by peers Self Created own measure to assess student perceptions of teacher support Self -.138 (P)-.048(V)

Brendgen et al., 2011 434 Canada Elementary 50.2% female 87% European decent, 3% African descent, 3% Asian descent, 1% Native North Americans. 6% did not disclose. Peer nominations with items from Victimization subscale of modified Peer Nomination Inventory (Perry et al., 1988) and items inspired by Preschool Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ; Behar & Stringfield, 1974) to assess victimization and bullying experiences of classmates Peer Teacher-Child Relationships Scale (STRS; Pianta et al., 1995), to assess closeness and conflict in TSR Teacher -.255 (P)-.100(V)

Bru et al., 2002 3834 Norway Middle; Secondary Created own measure to assess harassment of others Self Scale developed by Center for Behavioural Research to assess student perception teacher support Self -.085 (P)

Cho & Wooldredge, 2017 (South Korea) 2671 South Korea Middle; Secondary Mostly homogenous racial make-up of country's youth population No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of bullying Self No specific scale mentioned to assess attachments to teachers Self -.037 (V)

Cho & Wooldredge, 2017 (USA) 4990 USA Middle; Secondary 22% Non-white No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of bullying Self No specific scale mentioned to assess attachments to teachers Self -.404 (V)

Cornell et al., 2015 39 364 USA Middle; Secondary 51.7% female 52.4% White, 18.2% Black, 12.8% Hispanic, 3.4% Asian, 1.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, .5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 15.6% identifying self as more than one race No specific scale name mentioned to assess frequency of victimization; General Victimization scale (Gottfredson, 1999) to assess general victim experiences Self Derived from Learning Environment Scale (Austin & Duerr, 2005) and Willingness to Seek Help scale (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2009) to assess perceived supportiveness of teacher Self -.354 (V)

Cortes & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2014 278 USA Elementary 51.4% female 46.3% Hispanic or Mexican American, 43.5% White, 10.2% Black and Other Created own peer rating items to assess classmates picking on others;Multi-source Peer Victimization Inventory to measure victimization experiences Peer; Self Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness of TSR Teacher -.192 (P)-.035 (V)

Datta et al., 2017 56 508 USA Middle; Secondary 48.3% female 15.8% Hispanic or Latino, 49.4% White, 18.1% Black, 6.8% Asian, 2.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 1.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 22.5% Multiracial No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of being bullied Self Derived from the Authoritative School Climate Survey (Cornell et al., 2013) to assess supportiveness of TSR Self -.151 (V)

Davidson & Demaray, 2007 355 USA Middle; Secondary 53% female 97% Caucasian (344), 2% Hispanic (7), 0.8% African American (3), .3% Asian American (1) Bully-Victimization Scale (BVS; Reynolds, 2003) to assess victimization and bullying experiences Self Child and Adolescent Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) to measure social support from teachers Self -.084 (P)-.097 (V)

Di Stasio et al., 2016 678 Canada Middle 51% female 55.2% European descent, 4.4% South Asian, 1.4% Southeast Asian, 1.7% African American, 1% Aboriginal, .7% West Asian, .7% Latin American, 23.3% other, 11% no response Illinois Bully Scale (IBS; Espelage & Holt, 2001) to assess frequency of bullying, victimization, and fighting Self Student's Classroom Environment Measurement (SCEM; Midgley et al., 1991), subscale of Teacher/student relations to assess fair treatment and care for students Self -.140 (P)-.260 (V)

Doty et al., 2017 121 311 USA Middle; Secondary 49.8% female 74% White, 6.9% Multiracial, 7.3% Hispanic, 5.3% Black, 5.6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native California Healthy Kids survey (California Department of Education, 2010) to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization Self Created for the Minnesota Student Survey to assess perceived connectedness with teacher Self -.224 (V)

Doumas & Midgett, 2019 110 USA Elementary 59.1% female 62.7% Caucasian, 9.1% Hispanic, 9.1% African American, 6.4% Asian, 0.9% Pacific Isalnder, 11.8% other Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess bullying perpetration and victimization Self Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993), used subscale of caring relationships to assess quality of TSR Self -.406 (V)

Elledge et al., 2016 361 USA Elementary 53.9% female 61.1% Caucasian, 25.4% Hispanic, 13.5% other racial/ethnic groups Adapted School Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004) to assess peer victimization; No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher's ratings of victimization frequency;Modified version of Revised Class Play (Masten et al., 1985) to assess bullying and victimization of classmates Self; Teacher; Peer Peer nomination procedure (Hughes et al., 2001) to assess peer perceptions of classmate TSR quality Peer -.216 (V)

Elsaesser et al., 2013 5106 USA Middle; Secondary 49.2% female 52.1% African American, 21.2% Hispanic, 17.3% Caucasian, remaining as American Indian or Asian Problem Behaviour Frequency Scales (Farrell et al., 2000) to assess relational aggression and victimization Self Vessels’ School Climate Survey (Vessels, 1998) to assess fair treatment and criticisms from teachers Self .100 (P)-.255 (V)

Ertesvag, 2016 1571 Norway Middle; Secondary 50.8%, 1.4% did not report gender No specific scale (previously validated by Roland, 1999) mentioned to assess various types of bullying Self No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher emotional support and teacher instructional support scale Self -.110 (P)

Espelage et al., 2014 3616 USA Middle; Secondary 48% female Illinois: 33.5% Black, 33.1% Latino, 1.0 Asian, 20.2% White, 11.7% Biracial.Kansas: 35.2% Latino, 30.4% White, 17.5% Black, 4.2% Asian, 12.8% Biracial. Illinois Bully Scale to measure bullying perpetration;Illinois Fighting scale to measure frequency of physical aggression;Illinois Victimization Scale to assess frequency of peer victimization (all Espelage & Holt, 2001) Self Subscale of School Environment Survey, adapted from Colorado Trust's Bullying Prevention Initiative (Csuti, 2008), to assess positive teacher-staff-student interactions Teacher -.611 (P)-.497 (V)

Flaspohler et al., 2009 4331 USA Elementary 49.2% female Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess frequency of peer victimization Self Teacher subscale of Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) to assess social support from teachers Self -.147 (V)

Gyllborg, 2013 116 USA Elementary 54.3% female 90.4% (103) White, 5.3% (6) Hispanic, .9% Black (1), 3.5% Asian (4) Relational aggression subscale of Children's Social Behaviour Scale (CBS-S; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) to measure relational aggression; Relational victimization subscale from Children's Social Experiences Questionnaire to assess relational victimization experiences Self Short form of Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta et al., 1995) to assess conflict and closeness in TSR Teacher; Self -.143 (P).097 (V)

Havik, 2017 1571 Norway Middle; Secondary 50.8% female Scale developed by Roland and Idsøe (2001) to assess various types of peer victimization Self No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher emotional support and teacher instructional support Self -.188 (V)

Herrero et al., 2006 973 Spain Middle; Secondary 52.8% female Scale taken from Mynard and Joseph (2000) to measure various forms of peer victimization Self Created own measure to assess quality TSR and degree of non-conflict Teacher -.175 (P)-.060 (V)

Idsoe et al., 2008 2083 Norway Middle; Secondary 51.5% female Developed at Centre for Behavioural Research (Roland & Idsøe, 2001) to assess frequency of bullying behaviour Self Adopted from School Environment Questionnaire developed by Centre for Behavioural Research to assess teacher emotional support and teacher autonomy Self -.326 (P)

Iimori, 2002 817 USA Middle; Secondary 48.7% female 90.3% Caucasian, 1.8% Asian, 1.1% African-American, 1.1% Hispanic, 1.0% Native American, 4.7% other. No specific scale indicated to assess peer aggression; No specific scale mentioned to assess peer victimization experiences Self No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher support for student Self -.199 (P)-.147 (V)

Jia et al., 2018 747 China Middle; Secondary 48.9% female Adolescent Peer Victimization Questionnaire (Li et al., 2017) to assess frequency of peer victimization Self Adapted from Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Jia et al., 2017) to assess closeness in TSR Self -.224 (V)

Khoury-Kassabri, 2011 4495 Israel Elementary 54% female Two ethnic groups: Arab schools and Jewish schools. Higher response rate from Arab schools (58.8%). Adapted from California School Climate Survey (Furlong et al., 2005; Rosenblatt & Furlong, 1997) to measure frequency of peer victimization Self The School Climate Scale (Benbenishty, 2003) to assess teacher support Self -.105 (V)

Kremer, 2010 153 USA Elementary 47.1% female 42% Hispanic, 46% White, 2% African American, 4% Native American, 1% Asian, 5% Biracial This Child's Interactions with Peers Scale (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002) to assess frequency of peer victimization Teacher Truncated version of Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1994), to assess closeness, and conflict Teacher -.151 (V)

Kuhns, 2008 697 USA Elementary 47.4% female 34.1% White, 37.4% Hispanic, 23.2% African-American, 3.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, .3% Native American/Alaskan Native, 1.5% Other Peer nomination procedure to assess aggressive behaviour of classmates Peer Teacher Student Relationship Inventory (TSRI; Hughes et al., 2001) to assess teacher support and conflict;Peer nomination procedure to assess teacher support of classmates Teacher; Peer -.266 (P)

Lam et al., 2017 454 Hong Kong Middle; Secondary 49.4% female All Chinese Several scales to assess frequency of peer aggression and victimization (all scales Hill & Werner, 2006) Self Caring Adult Relationships in School Scale in California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd, 2000) to assess teacher support for relatedness Self -.277 (P)-.218 (V)

Leadbeater et al., 2014 800 Canada Elementary 51% female 95% European Caucasian, 2% Aboriginal, 1% Asian, 1% mixed ethnicity. Less than 1% Hispanic, Indo-Canadian, or African Canadian. Social Experience Questionnaire (SEQ, Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) to assess frequency of peer victimization experiences Self Student-teacher relations aspect of School Climate Survey (Haynes et al., 1993) to assess closeness and trust in TSR Self -.277 (P)

Lohbeck & Petermann, 2018 332 Germany Middle; Secondary 54.5% female Created new scales to assess various forms of cyber-victimization Self Adapted from Teacher-Student Relationship Questionnaire of PISA (Kunter et al., 2002) to assess quality and caring in TSR Self -.125 (P)

Longobardi et al., 2018 435 Italy Middle; Secondary 48.8% female 4.4% of sample consisted of 1st of 2nd generation immigrants. Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996) and Participant Role Scale (PRS; Jungert et al., 2016) to assess involvement in bullying behaviour and victimization Self Student Perception of Affective Relationship with Teacher Scale (SPARTS; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015) to assess closeness, conflict, and negative expectations within TSR Self -.139 (P)

Lucas-Molina et al., 2015 1864 Spain Elementary 50.7% female Adapted from another study (Defensor del Menor de la Comunidad de Madrid, 2006) to assess frequency of victimization and peer aggression Self Adapted from Benbenishty and Astor (2005) to assess student perceived teacher support in TSR;Student-to-teacher aggression scale (Mendoza, 2006), to assess frequency of aggressive behaviours towards teacher by student;Direct and indirect teacher-to-student aggression scale (Mendoza, 2006) to assessed frequency of teacher aggressive behaviour towards student Self -.020 (P)-.095 (V)

Mann et al., 2015 7084 Iceland Middle; Secondary 51.5% female Developed by Icelandic Institute for Educational Research (IER) and ICSRA to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization Self No specific scale indicated to assess quality of TSR Self .075 (P).016 (V)

Marachi et al., 2007 8404 Israel Middle; Secondary 50% female Adapted from California School Climate Survey (Furlong, 1999) to assess presence of victimization Self Adapted from California School Climate Survey (Furlong, 1999) to assess teacher support Self -.430 (V)

McAuliffe et al., 2009 127 USA Elementary 49.6% female 32.3% European American, 31.5% African American, 25.2% Hispanic/Latino, 3.2% another race. 6.3% more than one race, 1.6% no response Peer nomination procedure (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) to assess peer aggression in classmates Peer No specific scale indicated to assess teacher liking for each individual student Teacher -.604 (P)

Meehan et al., 2003 140 USA Elementary 33.6% female 37% Caucasian, 41% African American, 22% Hispanic. Modified version of Revised Class Play Method (Masten et al., 1985) to assess relational aggressive behaviour in classmates Peer Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) to assess aspects of support from teacher including Self .030 (P)

Moore et al., 2017 761 USA Middle/Secondary 25.6% female 11.4% (133) Other, 13.1% (153) Black, 14.1% (165)White, 10.9% (128) Mixed, 50.5% (590) Hispanic California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS; WestEd, 2000) to assess frequency of victimization Self California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS; WestEd, 2000) to assess caring relationships with teacher Self .121 (V)

Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010 888 Australia Middle; Secondary 49% female No specific data on sample - population typically Anglo-European, with minority of Asian, Middle-Eastern, and Indigenous Australian students. Your Life at School questionnaire to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization Self Your Life at School questionnaire to measure presence of stressfulness and supportiveness in TSR Self -.321 (P)-.215 (V)

Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016 2128 Belgium Middle; Secondary 50.5% female 94.8% Belgian nationality. No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of cyber-bullying, cybervictimization, traditional bullying, and traditional bullying victimization Self Adapted Dutch language school commitment scale (Murdock & Phelps, 1973) to assess student bonding to teacher Self -.094 (P).031 (V)

Raskauskas et al., 2010 1168 New Zealand Elementary 52% female Although no data collected here, sample represented ethnic makeup of New Zealand school pop.:70% European, 15% Maori, 10% Asian, 5% Pacific nations. Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ; Rigby 1997) to assess prevalence of bullying and victimization Self Student-teacher relationships subscale from Safe Communities -Safe Schools survey (Elliott et al., 2000) to assess quality of TSR Self -.203 (P)-.030 (V)

Reavis et al., 2010 218 USA Elementary 56% female 64% Caucasian Peer nomination procedure (Coie et al., 1982) to assess peer victimization Peer Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess conflict and closeness in TSR Teacher -.030 (V)

Richard et al., 2011 18 222 France Middle; Secondary 52% female 85% Caucasian Scale developed by Dauphin and Trosseille (2004) to assess peer victimization Self Scale developed by Dauphin and Trosseille (2004) to measure quality of TSR Self -.202 (P)

Rigby & Bagshaw, 2003 3551 Australia Middle; Secondary No specific scale indicated (e.g., Rigby & Bagshaw, 2001) to assess frequency of indirect bullying perpetration and victimization Self Created own scale for study to assess perceived helpfulness and fair treatment of teachers Self -.141 (P)-.070 (V)

Roth et al., 2010 725 Israel Middle; Secondary 50% female Scale developed by Rolider et al. (2001) to assess frequency of peer aggression Self Created own measure from Assor et al. (2002) Roth et al. (2007) and the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams & Deci, 1996) to assess student perception of teacher supporting student autonomy Self -.266 (P)

Rucinski, 2015 526 USA Elementary 53.8% female 44.5% (234) Hispanic, 18.1% (95) Black, 11.8% (62) White, 25.5% (134) Other racial-ethnic groups (approx. 95% of Other group identified as Asian/Pacific Islander). Aggression Scale (Orpinas and Frankowski, 2001) to assess frequency of peer aggression Self Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness and conflict of TSR;Drawn from Classroom Assessment Scoring System to assess trust and emotional support (Pianta et al., 2010) Teacher; Self -.131 (P)

Rudasill et al., 2017 1364 USA Elementary 48.3% female, 1 missing 80% (1097)White, 13% (176) Black, 7% (91) Hispanic, Asian American, or American Indian. Adapted from Child Behaviour Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996), Peer Victimization Scale (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), and Relational Aggression scale (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) to assess bullying perpetration and victimization Teacher Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness and conflict of TSR Teacher -.100 (P)-.090 (V)

Runions & Shaw, 2013 377 Australia Elementary 50.1% female Most spoke English in home. Non-English speakers were representative of immigration to Western Australia. Derived from the Social Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ; Tremblay et al., 1991) to assess physical peer aggression Teacher Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness and conflict in TSR Teacher -.192 (P)

Serdiouk et al., 2016 1568 USA Elementary 48.8% female 47% European American, 35% African American, 10% Hispanic, 4% Other Olweus Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess frequency of peer victimization Self Created own scale resembling closeness subscale of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) to assess closeness and avoidance in TSR Teacher -.070 (V)

Sulkowski & Simmons, 2017 539 USA Middle; Secondary 51% female 43% (236) Hispanic/Latino, 27% (145) White/Caucasian, 8% (41) Black/African American, 4% (19) Asian American, 2% (8) Native American/American Indian, 1% (4) Pacific Islander, 4% (19) Other. Peer Victimization scale on Revised Peer Experiences Questionnaire (RPEQ; Prinstein et al., 2001) to assess frequency victimization Self Teacher-Student Relationships subscale on School Climate Measure (SCM; Zullig et al., 2010) to assess quality of TSR Self -.424 (P)

Tanigawa, 2009 544 USA Middle; Secondary 56% female 40% Hispanic/Latino, 29% White, 20% Multi-ethnic, 5% Asian, 2% Black/African American, <1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, <1% Other. Victim scale of the California Bully/Victim Scale (Furlong et al., 2007) to assess frequency of peer victimization Self Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) to assess perceived social support from teachers Self -.472 (V)

Thornberg et al., 2017 899 Sweden Elementary 48.4% female Majority Swedish background, 16% had immigrant background. Created own measure (Thornberg et al., 2017) to assess prevalence of peer victimization Self Adopted the Class relational climate scale (Thornberg et al., 2017) to assess quality of TSR Self -.388 (V)

Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011 410 USA Elementary 52.9% female 87.1% European American, 1% African-American, 1.2% Asian-American, 4.6% Native American, 1% Hispanic, 5.1% mixed ethnic background. Peer rating derived from Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd's (2002) scales to assess frequency of peer aggression and victimization Peer Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) to assess closeness and conflict Teacher -.123 (P)

Troop-Gordon & Kuntz, 2013 352 USA Elementary 52.8% female 88% Caucasian, .9% Asian-American, .6% African-American, 1.4% Hispanic, 4.6% Native American, 4.6% mixed or other ethnicity. Adapted from Multi-Informant Peer Victimization Inventory (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002) to assess peer harassment Self Items taken from the Student-Teacher Relationship scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) to assess closeness and conflict in TSR Self -.020 (V)

Unal & Cukur, 2011 3742 Turkey Middle; Secondary 48% female No specific measure indicated to assess frequency of victimization Self Adopted from Richmond Youth Project (Hirschi, 1969) to assess student attachment to teacher Self -.192 (V)

Valle et al., 2018 426 Brazil Middle; Secondary 58% female School Violence Scale (Stelko-Pereira et al., 2010) to assess prevalence of bullying perpetration and victimization Self Teacher-Student Relationship Scale (Lamas et al., 2013) to assess closeness and conflict in TSR Self -.310 (P)-.266 (V)

Wang et al., 2015 435 USA Middle; Secondary 56.8% female 71.3% Caucasian, 6% African American, 4.1% Asian American, 3.4% Hispanic, 1.4% Eastern European. Verbal and Physical Bullying Scale (VPBS; Swearer et al., 2008; Radliff et al., 2016) to assess bullying perpetration Self School Climate Survey Revised Edition - Elementary and Middle School Version (SCS-ESV; Emmons et al., 2002) to assess teacher-student relationship quality Self -.208 (P)

Wang et al., 2018 1148 China Elementary 45% female Delaware Bullying Victimization Scale (Bear et al., 2011) to assess perceived bullying victimization Self Delaware School Climate Survey (Bear et al., 2011) to assess teacher-student relationship quality Self -.239 (V)

Wang et al., 2016 1075 USA Elementary 50% female 48.1% White/European American, 28.7% Black/African American, 11% Hispanic, 7.3% Asian, .4% American Indian, 4.5% multiracial. No specific scale indicated to assess prevalence of peer victimization Self No specific scale indicated, assessed teacher preference for each child, 1 item (5-point scale);No specific scale indicated, assessed student perceived relationship quality with teacher, Teacher; Self -.100 (V)

Yang, 2015 25 896 USA Middle; Secondary 51.5% female 45.4% Caucasian, 24.6% African American, 14.6% Hispanic/Latino, 3.55% Asian, 11.9% Other Delaware Bullying Victimization Scale - Student (DBCS-S; Bear et al., 2014) to assess frequency of bullying victimization Self Teacher-Student Relationships subscale of Delaware School Climate Survey - Student (DSCS-S; Bear et al., 2014), assessed quality of interactions between teachers and students, 4 items (4-point scale) Self -.141 (V)

Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010 664 Canada Middle; Secondary 51.5% female 86% Caucasian, 4% Asian, 2% Aboriginal, 1% Hispanic, 1% African, 1% East Indian, 1% Middle Eastern, 4% Other Relational victimization and physical victimization subscales of Social Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) to assess frequency of peer victimization Self No specific scale indicated, assessed teacher emotional support and reciprocity as perceived by student, 3 items (5-point scale) Self -.151 (V)

Zanden et al., 2015 781 Netherlands Elementary 49.9% female Bullying others' and 'victim of bullying' subscale of Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1989) to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization Self; Self Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI; Wubbels et al., 2006) to assess aspects of closeness and conflict Self -.133 (P)-.157 (V)

Note. PA = Peer aggression; TSRclos = Teacher-student relationship closeness; P = Peer perpetration; V = Peer victimization.

Aggregation of effect sizes

We aggregated across multiple measures of peer aggression involvement and TSR quality that were reported within a single study. This was required for a total of 35 studies. Aggregation was done by summing the various effects from each measure and dividing it by the number of effect sizes/measures, providing an average effect size across measures used. For the longitudinal studies (total of 16 studies), effect sizes were aggregated if they corresponded with timepoints occurring within the same academic year. When the timepoints of longitudinal studies fell in different academic years (e.g., timepoint 1 = Grade 1, timepoint 2 = Grade 2), only the first timepoint was extracted. This was done to minimize the impact of development on involvement in peer aggression and TSR quality as students age (Havik, 2017). Aggregation for these effect sizes was done by summing the total number of effect sizes occurring in the same academic year and dividing it by the number of effect sizes/time points. One intervention study was included in the final set (Elsaesser et al., 2013), and only the cross-sectional data collected prior to the intervention was used to eliminate effect size bias. A small subset of the unique studies reported on the same sample of students. In these cases, when the data were unique (e.g., one study reported on perpetration while the other reported on victimization; see Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011, and Troop-Gordon & Kuntz, 2013), both studies with their respective data were included in the final set. If the data in the two studies were exactly the same, only one study's data were included.

Study characteristics

With our set of 66 research reports we calculated a total of 90 independent effect sizes. Of the 66 included studies, 59 (89.4%) were published studies, and seven (10.6%) were unpublished studies (two master's theses and five doctoral dissertations). Publication dates of the set of studies ranged from 1999–2019. A total of 352, 376 student participants are represented in the present meta-analyses. The mean sample size is 5244 with sample sizes ranging from 89 to 121,311 participants (the largest, a US sample; Doty et al., 2017).

The studies in our dataset represent 20 countries from five continents (see Table 2 for a breakdown of participants across geographical regions). The majority of studies (>80%) reported roughly equal proportions of males and females in their study. Approximately 40% of studies included ethnically heterogeneous samples, and just over 20% of the studies reported ethnically homogeneous samples (i.e., indicated by over 80% of one ethnic background). Roughly 37% of the studies did not provide any ethnicity information about study participants. Students of all ages were included in the present meta-analyses from kindergarten to Grade 12, with 40% of studies including elementary school-aged children, and the remaining 60% including middle/intermediate and secondary school-aged children.

Table 2.
Breakdown of included studies and participants by geographical region.

Geographical Region Number of Studies Number of Participants

By Country

Australia 3 4816

Belgium 1 2128

Brazil 1 426

Canada 5 3370

China 3 2349

France 1 18 222

Germany 1 332

Iceland 1 7084

Israel 3 13 524

Italy 2 1169

Japan 1 2970

Netherlands 1 781

New Zealand 1 1168

Norway 5 8559

South Korea 2 2984

Spain 2 2837

Sweden 1 899

Turkey 1 3742

United Kingdom 1 364

USA 31 271 953

By Continent

North America 36 275 323

South America 1 42 6

Europe 17 46117

Asia 9 21 827

Australia 4 5984

Three quality assessment criteria, extracted from the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD; Sirriyeh et al., 2011) were coded to determine the amount and specificity of information for each indicator of reporting quality. After careful deliberation of other quality assessment tools, the QATSDD was used since it contained items that were highly relevant to the diverse but primarily observational and correlational nature of the included studies. No other quality assessment tools (e.g., Cochrane risk of bias tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) were better suited for our specific set of studies. The three quality assessment items that were coded included clear description of research setting (e.g., target population and clear research questions), clear description of data collection procedure (e.g., when and where data was collected), and statistical assessment of reliability and validity for measurement tools. These three items were selected since they queried critical and over-arching reporting standards observed in high quality studies. Fifty-one studies (77.3%) satisfied all three quality assurance criteria, 13 (19.7%) studies satisfied two out of the three criteria, and only two studies (3.3%) met just one of the quality assurance criteria. The quality assessment item that was most often missing from studies was adequate reliability and validity data for the measures used, with 15.2% of studies missing this criterion. We also examined each study for the presence of validity screening (i.e., the identification and removal of mischievous or careless responders). However, only three out of the total 66 studies included some form of validity screening, thus preventing us from conducting any statistical comparison of studies.

Meta-Analytic procedure

The correlation coefficient (r) is the chosen effect size for our meta-analyses. When a correlation matrix was not provided (N = 16), corresponding authors were emailed to request the bivariate correlations for our variables of interest. Of the remaining studies, those that included odds ratio data were transformed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software, version 3. Studies that reported a beta value from a regression analysis (N = 7) were transformed using the method recommended by Peterson and Brown (2005). This method of transforming beta values to correlation coefficients has recently received some criticism (Roth et al., 2018). However, this solution is more favourable than excluding the studies altogether (Borenstein et al. 2011). To account for this recent critique, a moderator analysis was conducted to compare standardized data (beta) transformed to correlation coefficients and direct estimates of Pearson r extracted from studies.

All extracted correlation coefficients were transformed using Fisher's Z to approximate a normal sampling distribution (Borenstein et al., 2011). Effect sizes were weighted using the inverse variance based on the standard error from the study (Card, 2011). Both meta-analyses were conducted with the transformed data, and then effect sizes were transformed back to Pearson r coefficients to make results more readily interpretable. Given that we assumed that differences among study effect sizes were due to a combination of sampling error and other factors, we selected a random effects model. The Der Simonian and Laird estimator was used. Two meta-analyses were conducted: (a) perpetration and TSR closeness and (b) victimization and TSR closeness. Aligned with Cohen's (1992) recommendations for qualitatively assessing sample size values, effect sizes are interpreted as small (r = .10-.29), medium (r = .30-.49), or large (r > .50). CMA, version 3 was used for all computations (Borenstein et al., 2013).

Heterogeneity statistics, the Q statistic and the I² index, are reported with each of the meta-analyses. The Q statistic is a significance test that tests the assumption of homogeneity of effect sizes (Borenstein et al., 2011). A significant Q statistic indicates that the effect sizes will differ between studies and that sample and methodological characteristics (i.e., potential moderators) play a critical role in the accurate interpretation of meta-analytic results. The I² index allows for the determination of the amount of heterogeneity among the effect sizes (Card, 2011). Rough estimates of the I² index are: ∼25% is equal to small heterogeneity beyond sampling error, ∼50% is representative of moderate heterogeneity outside of sampling error, and ∼75% + is considered to be large heterogeneity independent of sampling error (Borenstein et al., 2016).

Three moderator analyses were conducted using dichotomized categorical variables to more accurately understand how the association between peer aggression involvement and TSR quality changes as a function of the level of each moderator. For the moderator analyses, a mixed-effects analysis was selected. When moderator levels included fewer than five studies, a fixed-effects model was used to combine effect sizes (Hedges & Vevea, 1998). Each moderator level included a minimum of 3 effect sizes (k ≥ 3; Borenstein et al., 2011).

School level

School level was entered as a moderator to determine its effect on the association between TSR quality and involvement in peer aggression. School level was divided into two ordinal categories: primary (kindergarten – grade 6) and intermediate/secondary (Grade 7 – Grade 12). We made the decision to categorize the moderator in this way since important developmental changes (e.g., decrease in physical aggression but increase in covert peer aggression; Berger, 2007) and contextual shifts occur around the Grade 6–7 mark as students move to larger schools and interact with greater number of teachers. Additionally, the majority of studies included in the final set of studies reported school or grade level rather than student age.

Informant

Informant type was entered as a moderator to determine what effect informant had on the relationship between TSR closeness and peer aggression involvement. Informants were divided into two categories: self and observer (comprised of peer and teacher reports). Peer and teacher reports were combined because of the limited number of studies in each of these informant categories, and because of the large amount of inter-rater agreement between observer informants identified in the research literature for both peer aggression involvement and TSR quality (Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004; Li et al., 2012). Two separate moderator analyses were run. First, informant effects for studies that used the same informant across both involvement in peer aggression and TSR measures (self/self or observer/observer) were compared. Second, studies that used the same informant for each construct (self/self or observer/observer) were compared against studies that used different informants for each construct (self/observer), assessing for cross-informant effects. Importantly, only primary school-aged children (kindergarten – grade 6) were included in the informant moderator analyses since no studies in our sample that included students in intermediate or secondary school levels utilized peer or teacher reports for measures of peer aggression involvement.

Measure type

The measure type moderator was divided into two categories: established or novel. Measures were characterized as established if they had been previously subject to validation research and authors reported validity evidence of the measure from prior research. Measures were categorized as novel if there was no available validity evidence and the authors stated that the measure had been created for the specific purposes of their study. Studies were included in this moderator analysis only if they used the same quality of measure for both variables (i.e., established/established or novel/novel for both peer aggression involvement and TSR quality). Studies were excluded if they used one type of measure for one construct (e.g., validated measure), but not the other.

Results

Data screening

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess whether any one study had undue influence on the total effect sizes. The analysis indicated that no study was significantly manipulating results for the peer perpetration and peer victimization meta-analyses. No studies were identified as outliers. Despite the large range of effect sizes from the included studies, no study was identified as a true outlier, but was considered within the true range of the studies included.

Publication bias

Publication bias was assessed. Egger's linear regression (Egger et al., 1997) assesses whether or not studies were published due to statistically significant results by assessing the amount of asymmetry when studies are plotted by effect size and sample size (Card, 2011). It is assumed that there is no evidence of publication bias when p > .05. For perpetration and TSR closeness, Egger's linear regression was not significant (p = .69) (see Figure 2 for funnel plot). For victimization and TSR closeness, Egger's linear regression produced a non-significant result (p = .74) (see Figure 3 for funnel plot). Taken together, these results suggest that there are no persuasive indicators of publication bias in these meta-analyses.

Figure 2.
Publication bias funnel plot for peer perpetration and teacher-student relationship closeness. Note: CES = combined effect size. The imputed data point represents an adjustment of the combined effect size to account for potentially missing studies using the Trim-and-Fill method.

Figure 3.
Publication bias funnel plot for peer victimization and teacher-student relationship closeness. Note: CES = combined effect size.

Perpetration and TSR closeness

Figure 4 displays the distribution of all 42 effect sizes and the summary effect (listed last in the figure) corresponding to peer aggression perpetration and TSR closeness. Effect sizes ranged from -.545 to .100. The overall aggregated effect represents a small significant negative association between perpetration and TSRs characterized by warmth and support [r = -.185 (95% CI. -.235 < r < -.133), Z = -6.886, p < .001]. The results indicate that as students are involved at increasing levels of aggressing against others, they tend to have decreasing closeness within their relationships with teachers. This supports our hypothesis that students who aggress against their peers will also experience reduced feelings of closeness, warmth, and support with their teachers. The test for homogeneity of variance was significant revealing that there was true variability between study effect sizes, beyond sampling error [Q (41) = 1811.805, p < .001]. The magnitude of the heterogeneity outside of sampling error was very large, with an I² index approaching 100% (I² index = 97.737).

Figure 4.
Forest plot for peer perpetration and teacher-student relationship closeness. Note: Q (41) = 1811.805, p < .001; I² = 97.737.

Victimization and TSR closeness

The second meta-analysis synthesized 48 effect sizes corresponding to the association between peer victimization and TSR closeness, ranging from -.460 to .120. The distribution of these effect sizes, including the summary effect, can be found in Figure 5. Results of the meta-analysis revealed a small significant negative association between victimization and TSRs characterized by closeness and warmth [r = -.157 (95% CI. -.190 < r < -.123), Z = -8.933, p < .001]. Although the effect is small in scale, these results support our hypothesis, indicating that overall, as victimization increases, closeness in TSRs decreases. The test for homogeneity of variance was significant, indicating that there was true variance among effect sizes, more than what could be attributed to sampling error [Q (47) = 3515.449, p < .001]. The I² index = 98.663, revealing a very large amount of between-study variance.

Figure 5.
Forest plot for peer victimization and teacher-student relationship closeness. Note: Q (47) = 3515.449, p < .001; I² = 98.663.

Moderator analyses

School level

The results for the school level moderator can be found in Table 3. No significant difference was found in the association between TSR closeness and perpetration (Q (1) = .096, p = .756) between students in primary school level and students in intermediate or secondary school level. The effect of school level on the association between TSR closeness and victimization was likewise non-significant (Q (1) = 1.770, p = .183).

Table 3.
All moderator analysis for each meta-analysis.

Peer Aggression and Teacher-Student Relationships School Level Category

P/TSRclos k V/TSRclos k

Elementary -.173 15 -.127 19

Intermediate/Secondary -.191 27 -.174 29

Q .096 1.770

Same Informant Category

P/TSRclos k V/TSRclos k

Self -.202 3 -.145 8

Other -.161 7 -.090 4

Q 2.508 5.800*

Cross-Informant Category

P/TSRclos k V/TSRclos k

Same -.138 12

Mixed -.077 3

Q 7.211*

Measure Category

P/TSRclos k V/TSRclos k

Established -.199 28 -.176 29

Novel -.197 6 -.114 8

Q .001 2.228

Data Type Category

P/TSRclos k V/TSRclos k

Correlation coefficient (un-transformed) -.206 36 −156 40

Beta (transformed) -.061 6 -.158 8

Q 4.208* .001

Note: P = Perpetration, V = Victimization, TSRclos = Teacher-student relationship closeness. * indicates p-value <.05.

Informant

Same Informant

For perpetration and TSR closeness, there was no significant moderating effect for same informant, (Q (1) = 2.508, p = .113) (see Table 3 for results), indicating no difference in effect size for each informant sub-group. However, a significant moderating effect was found for victimization and TSR closeness (Q (1) = 5.800, p = .016), with stronger study effects attributed to self-reporting informants (r = -.145, p < .001, n = 8) versus observer informants (r = -.090, p < 001, n = 4).

Cross Informant

No cross-informant moderator analysis was conducted for peer perpetration and TSR closeness given the insufficient number of studies in the moderator subgroups. For victimization and TSR closeness, there was a significant moderating effect for cross-informant, (Q (1) = 7.211, p = .007) with stronger associations between peer victimization and TSR closeness when the same informant was used (r = -.138, p < .001, n = 12) than when a cross informant approach was applied (r = -.077, p < .001, n = 3). Results can be found in Table 3.

Measure type

No significant moderating effect was found between established and novel measures for peer perpetration and TSR closeness (Q (1) = .001 p = .981) (see Table 3 for results). For peer victimization and TSR closeness, no moderating effect was found between established and novel measures (Q (1) = 2.228, p = .135).

Computations from standardized coefficients

Results of our analysis of error imparted to the data from transforming standardized betas into correlation coefficients can be found in Table 3. For perpetration and TSR closeness, a significant moderating effect was found (Q (1) = 4.208, p = .040), suggesting that studies with direct correlational estimates were associated with stronger effect sizes (r = -.206, p < .001, n = 36) compared to studies with transformed standardized beta coefficients (r = -.061, p = .354, n = 6). No significant moderating effect was found for victimization and TSR closeness indicating no statistically meaningful differences between studies with direct correlational estimates. Results from this moderator analysis should be interpreted in light of the consideration that the effect sizes were smaller for the studies with beta values because the regression models controlled for covariates.

Discussion

The present study quantitatively synthesizes a substantial body of literature published over the last two decades that has investigated links between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness. Our results, which aggregate findings of 66 independent studies, arguably provide the clearest indication to date of the overall size and direction of the associations between these variables. A key strength of our meta-analyses is the inclusion of a highly varied set of studies. The 66 studies represent a large and diverse group of students in kindergarten-Grade 12: they numbered more than 350,000; ranged from ages four to 18 years; and originated in 20 countries on five continents. Our results show that there are small but significant negative associations between involvement in peer aggression, including perpetration and victimization, and the closeness that teachers and students experience in their relationship. This means that students who are more highly involved in peer aggression, whether in perpetrator or victim roles, also tend to have relationships with their teachers that lack closeness, which we have conceptualized as consisting of warmth, trust, and support. Studies conducted on the topic have not always found significant and negative correlations between students who are involved in peer aggression and warm and supportive TSRs (e.g., Elledge et al., 2016; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016). The findings of our meta-analyses clearly indicate that such findings are contrary to overall trends in the literature.

It is important to note that our findings may nonetheless obscure more complex associations between peer aggression involvement, in particular, and certain kinds of individual characteristics. For example, other research has shown that a subset of children who perpetrate bullying against their peers but are not themselves victimized tend to be popular in their peer group and seen by peers as possessing leadership and other social competencies (Vaillancourt et al., 2003). Sutton et al. (1999) found that some children who perpetrate aggression show theory-of-mind skills that are superior to children involved in peer aggression in other roles (e.g., followers, victims) and suggested that these skills for understanding others’ cognitions and emotions can be used in strategic and manipulative ways to perpetrate against others. Another subgroup involved in peer aggression, who we were not able to isolate in our analyses, comprise children in the combined perpetrator-victim group. These children exhibit the highest levels of challenging externalizing behaviours (e.g., aggression, hyperactivity, conduct problems; Kelly et al., 2015; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002) which serve to erode closeness and amplify conflict over time in their relationships with teachers (Mejia & Hoglund, 2016; Roorda & Koomen, 2021). In light of this evidence, it is possible that a stronger negative link between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness may exist for children who act in both perpetrator and victim roles compared to students who exclusively act as perpetrators. In contrast, children who are primarily victimized tend to experience higher levels of internalizing problems relative to the other subgroups of involved children (Schoeler et al., 2018), and these challenges appear not to exert the same strains on relationships with teachers. While internalizing problems seem to have some negative relationship impacts, their impacts are not as strong nor as persistent as the effects of externalizing problems on TSRs (Mejia & Hoglund, 2016). The links we draw here between the aggression involvement groups and TSRs remain speculative, particularly because it is not possible to discern in our data any relationship trends that might apply to students who are involved in peer aggression as both perpetrators and victims. In order to maximize our sample size, we chose to synthesize continuous peer aggression involvement data rather than comparing discrete categories of perpetrator and victim roles, for which there was much less data. This is a limitation of our meta-analyses and points to an important avenue of future research to investigate how exactly various peer aggression involvement roles are linked to TSR closeness.

It is useful to consider how this association between involvement in peer aggression and TSR closeness unfolds in the school context. Longitudinal research findings are mixed about the causal pathways connecting these variables. Some research reveals pathways that are primarily unidirectional, beginning with students’ externalizing behaviours, including aggression, and leading to lower TSR quality (Mejia & Hoglund, 2016; Roorda & Koomen, 2021), while other research indicates bidirectional paths whereby higher peer aggression involvement leads to TSRs low in closeness and, simultaneously, TSRs lacking closeness lead to more peer aggression involvement (Holfeld & Leadbeater, 2017; Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016; Serdiouk et al., 2016). In consideration of these latter findings and the relational systems perspective that informs our own work (e.g., see Watson, 2012), the following scenarios illustrate how these reciprocal interpersonal processes might unfold over time. A teacher who witnesses a student routinely aggress against their peers may begin to dislike the student and withdraw their support and care for them. This may lead the student to feel disconnected from and unsupported by their teacher, which in turn may lead the student to perpetrate against their peers more often. Conversely, a student who continues to be victimized by their peers may perceive their teacher as unhelpful, and unable to provide protection and support, ultimately leading to further disconnection and isolation. It is also prudent to consider that the link between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness may be due to specific student characteristics that increase risk of involvement in peer aggression and also decrease the likelihood of forming close relationships with their teachers. Smokowski and Kopasz (2005) outline several characteristics often identified in victimized students, including poor social skills and emotional maladjustment.

On a theoretical level, these results highlight the influence that activities in one social context (i.e., the TSR) can have on another social context (i.e., peer interactions) in the school setting and point to the important role of the teacher in the classroom beyond teaching content. Overall, findings from the two meta-analyses emphasize the unique and critical role of the TSR embedded in the social landscape of the classroom, providing yet more evidence for the Bioecological Model of development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). This study examined the constructs of peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness at the level of the mesosystem. Mesosystem effects emerge when students learn how to treat their peers by looking to their teacher's interactions with classmates, as described by the social reference theory (Hendrickx et al., 2017). Our quantitative evidence of mesosystem effects, which tend to be more difficult to measure then microsystem effects, is an important strength of the present meta-analyses.

Moderator analyses

To provide a more nuanced understanding of the correlation between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness, three moderators were investigated, the first of these being school level. The results of the analysis revealed that school level (dichotomized into elementary; k-6 and intermediate/secondary; 7–12) did not significantly moderate the relationship between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness (see Table 3). It appears that despite clear changes in developmental stage and school context, the association between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness remains stable. That is, the links between involvement in peer aggression and TSR closeness remain just as important in grade 12 as they do in kindergarten, and all the grades in between. One explanation for this non-significant result is that while the correlation coefficients remain stable, the individual data points may still change. It is entirely possible that two things are happening simultaneously; (1) that both peer aggression involvement rates and TSR closeness ratings are lower for older student compared to younger student populations in our sample of studies – which would align with extant literature (Kennedy, 2021; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997; Wu & Hughes, 2015), and (2) that peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness ratings are decreasing in parallel. Thus, despite our initial hypothesis, the correlation coefficients for older and younger students would share the same amount of variability, resulting in no statistically meaningful differences. We are not able to confirm this explanation, given the limited availability of individual data points for peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness in our set of studies. It would be informative for future research to explore the association between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness across student age and school context more deeply.

The informant moderator analyses indicated that informant type (self versus observer, observer including peers or teachers for the purposes of this study) significantly influenced results for one of the two meta-analyses. First, self-reports of peer victimization and TSR closeness yielded stronger effect sizes relative to observer reports. Studies have found that self-reports of involvement in aggressing against others and being victimized share limited agreement with reports from teachers and peers (Cornell & Brockenbrough, 2004). Second, a significant moderating effect of cross informant was found for peer victimization and TSR closeness with larger associations for studies that used the same informant for both involvement in peer aggression and TSR closeness compared to studies that employed a cross-informant approach. This analysis provides quantitative evidence that using the same informant for measures of both peer victimization specifically and TSR closeness may inflate effect sizes. Our results from this cross-informant moderator analysis are aligned with existing literature supporting the use of multiple informants (e.g., Achenbach et al., 1987). Bolstered by these findings and given the discrete differences among informants when assessing both peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness, we suggest that several varied informant perspectives be sought so a more comprehensive understanding can be gathered (Shakoor et al., 2011). When the same informant reports on different constructs on similarly structured scales, biases in the informant can influence responses to both measures in similar ways and cause shared method variance. This can be true of self and other (teacher and peer) informants. Soliciting various informant perspectives removes this methodological bias and potentially provides a more accurate estimate of associations between the two constructs. Importantly, our moderator analyses only included primary school aged children since no studies in our sample that included intermediate/secondary school aged children utilized observer-reports for measures of peer aggression involvement. It would be worthwhile for future research to adopt observer-report measures when investigating involvement of peer aggression and TSR quality in older age groups to further assess the function of age in the association between these two constructs.

While many studies included in our analyses used measures with strong validity evidence (e.g., STRS; Pianta, 2001), several other studies included measures that had been specifically designed for the purposes of the single study, or included a measure that combined items from several different measures. This moderator analysis of measure type suggests that using novel measures does not necessarily result in smaller effect sizes. Thus, attempts to use novel measures should not be entirely dissuaded, particularly if it allows researchers to administer a measure that better suits their study requirements. However, what remains most important, and especially so when utilizing novel measures, is that researchers provide psychometric properties of the included measures whenever possible, to ensure that their chosen measure is indeed assessing the desired construct. The consolidation and validation of measures in these domains will also make future quantitative syntheses more feasible and accurate.

Limitations

An important limitation requiring consideration is the significant heterogeneity of the studies included. Notably, this was an important strength of the paper as it allows the results to be generalized to diverse populations across several different countries and continents. However, the large amount of heterogeneity complicates efforts to explain how and why exactly effect sizes differed from one study to the next. It will be important for future research to explicate the subtleties of the relationship between the two constructs. Additionally, future analyses should assess the reduction of heterogeneity after accounting for particular moderators. While these analyses were ultimately beyond the scope of our present meta-analyses, a closer investigation of the impact of moderators on the link between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness is recommended to better inform prevention and intervention programs for a variety of students.

While our set of studies was diverse, Africa was not represented in the present analysis and the majority of the included studies were North American, and primarily from the United States. This highlights the need for more geographically diverse research to test the generalizability of our findings to children, youth, and teachers in other parts of the globe.

Additionally, given the cross-sectional nature of our analyses, we are not able to make any conclusions regarding the causal ordering of the variables. It would be worthwhile for future research to focus on quantitatively synthesizing the longitudinal associations between peer aggression involvement and TSR closeness to better understand how the two constructs interact across time.

Implications of study

The results of the present meta-analyses have important implications for both theory and practice. Our results emphasize that child development does not occur in a vacuum; rather, development is influenced heavily by the social-cultural systems that surround the individual child, as posited by the Bioecological Model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Our findings also shed light on the role of the mesosystem within a child's context – providing quantitative evidence of the influence arising from dynamic interactions between two separate micro-systems (i.e., peer relationships and TSRs). Taken together, our meta-analyses further strengthen an ecological understanding of development whereby contextual factors surrounding the child are key indicators of understanding developmental trajectories, both positive and negative, at least as it pertains to involvement in peer aggression.

Importantly, because we used a random effects model for our analyses, the findings from our meta-analyses are generalizable to student populations beyond those included in our final set, which is already large in scale and diverse in nature. As such, our results can be used to inform policy and intervention/prevention programs geared towards reducing peer aggression involvement and improving TSRs for many different groups of students. From a practical perspective, the results support the inclusion of additional training for teachers to promote relationships with their students that are characterized by high levels of closeness. Although findings on causal pathways are mixed, it seems plausible viewed in a systems perspective that a shift in one social context, for example in the quality of TSRs, could lead to changes in the other social context, peer relationships (e.g., Meadows, 2008). In this way, prevention and intervention programs designed to improve levels of closeness in TSRs may cause downstream effects that impact peer aggression involvement rates. One of the core established interventions in this regard is the Banking Time intervention (Williford & Pianta, 2020), which adopts a dyadic and bidirectional approach to improving TSRs that requires the active engagement from both student and teacher. The intervention involves one-on-one sessions in which the teacher intentionally follows the student's lead in activities and interactions with the goal of fostering a sense of closeness and trust. Other interventions have embraced an approach whereby the teacher is primarily responsible for improving levels of closeness in the TSR, which is supported by the social reference theory posed by Hendrickx et al. (2017). Jennings and Greenberg (2009) make a compelling case for the influence of the TSR within the larger classroom network. They state that social and emotional competencies of the teacher (i.e., high levels of social awareness, communication of respect and attunement) are integrally linked to the wellbeing of students and to a well-functioning and healthy classroom environment. Using this conceptual foundation, Smith & Whitley (2022) developed a new intervention (called Teaching with Acceptance and Commitment) aimed at developing teachers’ social-emotional competencies in order to support the development of positive TSRs, although efficacy data on the intervention are still lacking. Other research outlines several specific social-emotional competencies that can nurture close TSRs from a social reference and attachment perspective (Bouchard & Smith, 2017; Yu et al., 2018). Some of these include noticing students’ presence and individual needs both in academic and social contexts, an investment and care for students beyond just broad-level teaching (e.g., taking extra time to make sure student understands content) and emotional support for students (e.g., offering a safe space for students to discuss challenges). While the quality of TSRs is no doubt affected by both child and teacher contributions, interventions have focused mainly on the teacher as the individual most responsible for the relationship quality, given the developmental and professional advantages they have as adults in the relationship. This adult-led approach is promoted by large organizations seeking to reduce acts of peer aggression, such as Promoting Relationships and Ending Violence Network, comprising researchers and educational and community organizations committed to improving the development contexts for children and youth (PREVNet, 2019).

Conclusion

The results of the study illustrate the interconnected social landscape of schools, indicating that students who have relationships with their teachers that are positive, warm, and supportive are less likely to be involved in peer aggression incidents at school, either as a victim or a perpetrator. Our findings shed light on the mutual influence that exists between various social contexts in the school setting, and they highlight the often overlooked importance of teachers beyond just teaching class material and managing classroom behaviour. Findings from our meta-analyses speak to a global need for children and youth of all ages to have teachers that care about them, endeavor to support them, and communicate warmth. In return, children and youth may be more likely to extend the same positive relationship experiences to their peers, potentially decreasing peer aggression involvement overall.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spi-10.1177_01430343221138038 - Supplemental material for The interconnected school context: Meta-analyses of the associations between peer aggression involvement and teacher-student relationship closeness

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spi-10.1177_01430343221138038 for The interconnected school context: Meta-analyses of the associations between peer aggression involvement and teacher-student relationship closeness by Amanda Krause and J. David Smith in School Psychology International

		Sample Characteristics			Measurement Characteristics		Effect Size
Aceves et al., 2009	148	USA	Middle; Secondary	49.3% female	76 (51.5%) Latino, 36 (24.2%) Asian American, 28 (18.9) African American, 8 (5.3%) other (including Caucasian, Middle Eastern, or mixed ethnicity)	Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006) to measure pro-active peer aggression	Self	Trust In and Respect For Teacher Scale (Battistich et al., 2004) to assess students appraisals of TSRQ	Self	-.277 (P)
Akiba et al., 2010	2970	Japan	Middle; Secondary			Created own measure to assess victimization and bullying behaviour	Self	Created own measures to assess Teacher Bonding, Student guidance, and Instructional support	Self	-.113 (P).107 (V)
Bacchini et al., 2009	734	Italy	Middle; Secondary	50.1% female		Olweus Bully victim questionnaire (Olweus 1986 1996) to assess frequency of victimization and perpetration	Self	Created own measure to assess student perceived relationship with teacher, and if teacher has favourites	Self	-.090 (P).070 (V)
Bae et al., 2018	313	South Korea	Middle; Secondary	51.6% female	148 (59%) of sample were of ethnic minority (at least 1 foreign born parent); Other half were of Korean ethnicity	Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (modified version; Harel-Fisch et al., 2011; Olweus, 2007) to assess frequency of victimization and perpetration	Self	Student's Perceived Relationship with Teachers to assess teacher support and care of student (Harel-Fisch et al., 2011)	Self	-.273 (P)-.355(V)
Bardack & Obradovic, 2017	89	USA	Elementary	52% female	59% minority status (25% Hispanic/Latino, 19% Asian, 12% Multiracial/ other, 3% Black)	MacArthur Health and Behaviour Questionnaire (Armstrong & Goldstein, 2003) to assess relational aggression	Teacher	Teacher-child closeness scale (Armstrong & Goldstein, 2003) adopted from STRS to assess teacher's perceptions of closeness with individual child	Teacher	-.020 (P)
Beran, 2009	794	Canada	Middle; Secondary	49.8% female		Survey developed for National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Statistics Canada, 1999) to measure frequency of victimization and bullying behaviour	Self	Survey developed for National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (Statistics Canada, 1999) perceived support from teachers and fair treatment	Self	-.288 (P)
Boulton et al., 2012	364	United Kingdom	Elementary	46.7% female		Peer nominations with items derived from previous studies (e.g., Boulton & Smith, 1994) to assess variety of bullying experiences	Peer	Created own scale to measure TSR on positive aspects only	Self	-.141(V)
Boyesen & Bru, 1999	1071	Norway	Middle; Secondary			Created own measure to assess harassment of others and exposure to harassment by peers	Self	Created own measure to assess student perceptions of teacher support	Self	-.138 (P)-.048(V)
Brendgen et al., 2011	434	Canada	Elementary	50.2% female	87% European decent, 3% African descent, 3% Asian descent, 1% Native North Americans. 6% did not disclose.	Peer nominations with items from Victimization subscale of modified Peer Nomination Inventory (Perry et al., 1988) and items inspired by Preschool Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ; Behar & Stringfield, 1974) to assess victimization and bullying experiences of classmates	Peer	Teacher-Child Relationships Scale (STRS; Pianta et al., 1995), to assess closeness and conflict in TSR	Teacher	-.255 (P)-.100(V)
Bru et al., 2002	3834	Norway	Middle; Secondary			Created own measure to assess harassment of others	Self	Scale developed by Center for Behavioural Research to assess student perception teacher support	Self	-.085 (P)
Cho & Wooldredge, 2017 (South Korea)	2671	South Korea	Middle; Secondary		Mostly homogenous racial make-up of country's youth population	No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of bullying	Self	No specific scale mentioned to assess attachments to teachers	Self	-.037 (V)
Cho & Wooldredge, 2017 (USA)	4990	USA	Middle; Secondary		22% Non-white	No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of bullying	Self	No specific scale mentioned to assess attachments to teachers	Self	-.404 (V)
Cornell et al., 2015	39 364	USA	Middle; Secondary	51.7% female	52.4% White, 18.2% Black, 12.8% Hispanic, 3.4% Asian, 1.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, .5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 15.6% identifying self as more than one race	No specific scale name mentioned to assess frequency of victimization; General Victimization scale (Gottfredson, 1999) to assess general victim experiences	Self	Derived from Learning Environment Scale (Austin & Duerr, 2005) and Willingness to Seek Help scale (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2009) to assess perceived supportiveness of teacher	Self	-.354 (V)
Cortes & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2014	278	USA	Elementary	51.4% female	46.3% Hispanic or Mexican American, 43.5% White, 10.2% Black and Other	Created own peer rating items to assess classmates picking on others;Multi-source Peer Victimization Inventory to measure victimization experiences	Peer; Self	Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness of TSR	Teacher	-.192 (P)-.035 (V)
Datta et al., 2017	56 508	USA	Middle; Secondary	48.3% female	15.8% Hispanic or Latino, 49.4% White, 18.1% Black, 6.8% Asian, 2.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 1.0% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 22.5% Multiracial	No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of being bullied	Self	Derived from the Authoritative School Climate Survey (Cornell et al., 2013) to assess supportiveness of TSR	Self	-.151 (V)
Davidson & Demaray, 2007	355	USA	Middle; Secondary	53% female	97% Caucasian (344), 2% Hispanic (7), 0.8% African American (3), .3% Asian American (1)	Bully-Victimization Scale (BVS; Reynolds, 2003) to assess victimization and bullying experiences	Self	Child and Adolescent Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) to measure social support from teachers	Self	-.084 (P)-.097 (V)
Di Stasio et al., 2016	678	Canada	Middle	51% female	55.2% European descent, 4.4% South Asian, 1.4% Southeast Asian, 1.7% African American, 1% Aboriginal, .7% West Asian, .7% Latin American, 23.3% other, 11% no response	Illinois Bully Scale (IBS; Espelage & Holt, 2001) to assess frequency of bullying, victimization, and fighting	Self	Student's Classroom Environment Measurement (SCEM; Midgley et al., 1991), subscale of Teacher/student relations to assess fair treatment and care for students	Self	-.140 (P)-.260 (V)
Doty et al., 2017	121 311	USA	Middle; Secondary	49.8% female	74% White, 6.9% Multiracial, 7.3% Hispanic, 5.3% Black, 5.6% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native	California Healthy Kids survey (California Department of Education, 2010) to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization	Self	Created for the Minnesota Student Survey to assess perceived connectedness with teacher	Self	-.224 (V)
Doumas & Midgett, 2019	110	USA	Elementary	59.1% female	62.7% Caucasian, 9.1% Hispanic, 9.1% African American, 6.4% Asian, 0.9% Pacific Isalnder, 11.8% other	Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess bullying perpetration and victimization	Self	Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM; Goodenow, 1993), used subscale of caring relationships to assess quality of TSR	Self	-.406 (V)
Elledge et al., 2016	361	USA	Elementary	53.9% female	61.1% Caucasian, 25.4% Hispanic, 13.5% other racial/ethnic groups	Adapted School Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004) to assess peer victimization; No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher's ratings of victimization frequency;Modified version of Revised Class Play (Masten et al., 1985) to assess bullying and victimization of classmates	Self; Teacher; Peer	Peer nomination procedure (Hughes et al., 2001) to assess peer perceptions of classmate TSR quality	Peer	-.216 (V)
Elsaesser et al., 2013	5106	USA	Middle; Secondary	49.2% female	52.1% African American, 21.2% Hispanic, 17.3% Caucasian, remaining as American Indian or Asian	Problem Behaviour Frequency Scales (Farrell et al., 2000) to assess relational aggression and victimization	Self	Vessels’ School Climate Survey (Vessels, 1998) to assess fair treatment and criticisms from teachers	Self	.100 (P)-.255 (V)
Ertesvag, 2016	1571	Norway	Middle; Secondary	50.8%, 1.4% did not report gender		No specific scale (previously validated by Roland, 1999) mentioned to assess various types of bullying	Self	No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher emotional support and teacher instructional support scale	Self	-.110 (P)
Espelage et al., 2014	3616	USA	Middle; Secondary	48% female	Illinois: 33.5% Black, 33.1% Latino, 1.0 Asian, 20.2% White, 11.7% Biracial.Kansas: 35.2% Latino, 30.4% White, 17.5% Black, 4.2% Asian, 12.8% Biracial.	Illinois Bully Scale to measure bullying perpetration;Illinois Fighting scale to measure frequency of physical aggression;Illinois Victimization Scale to assess frequency of peer victimization (all Espelage & Holt, 2001)	Self	Subscale of School Environment Survey, adapted from Colorado Trust's Bullying Prevention Initiative (Csuti, 2008), to assess positive teacher-staff-student interactions	Teacher	-.611 (P)-.497 (V)
Flaspohler et al., 2009	4331	USA	Elementary	49.2% female		Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess frequency of peer victimization	Self	Teacher subscale of Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) to assess social support from teachers	Self	-.147 (V)
Gyllborg, 2013	116	USA	Elementary	54.3% female	90.4% (103) White, 5.3% (6) Hispanic, .9% Black (1), 3.5% Asian (4)	Relational aggression subscale of Children's Social Behaviour Scale (CBS-S; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) to measure relational aggression; Relational victimization subscale from Children's Social Experiences Questionnaire to assess relational victimization experiences	Self	Short form of Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta et al., 1995) to assess conflict and closeness in TSR	Teacher; Self	-.143 (P).097 (V)
Havik, 2017	1571	Norway	Middle; Secondary	50.8% female		Scale developed by Roland and Idsøe (2001) to assess various types of peer victimization	Self	No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher emotional support and teacher instructional support	Self	-.188 (V)
Herrero et al., 2006	973	Spain	Middle; Secondary	52.8% female		Scale taken from Mynard and Joseph (2000) to measure various forms of peer victimization	Self	Created own measure to assess quality TSR and degree of non-conflict	Teacher	-.175 (P)-.060 (V)
Idsoe et al., 2008	2083	Norway	Middle; Secondary	51.5% female		Developed at Centre for Behavioural Research (Roland & Idsøe, 2001) to assess frequency of bullying behaviour	Self	Adopted from School Environment Questionnaire developed by Centre for Behavioural Research to assess teacher emotional support and teacher autonomy	Self	-.326 (P)
Iimori, 2002	817	USA	Middle; Secondary	48.7% female	90.3% Caucasian, 1.8% Asian, 1.1% African-American, 1.1% Hispanic, 1.0% Native American, 4.7% other.	No specific scale indicated to assess peer aggression; No specific scale mentioned to assess peer victimization experiences	Self	No specific scale mentioned to assess teacher support for student	Self	-.199 (P)-.147 (V)
Jia et al., 2018	747	China	Middle; Secondary	48.9% female		Adolescent Peer Victimization Questionnaire (Li et al., 2017) to assess frequency of peer victimization	Self	Adapted from Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Jia et al., 2017) to assess closeness in TSR	Self	-.224 (V)
Khoury-Kassabri, 2011	4495	Israel	Elementary	54% female	Two ethnic groups: Arab schools and Jewish schools. Higher response rate from Arab schools (58.8%).	Adapted from California School Climate Survey (Furlong et al., 2005; Rosenblatt & Furlong, 1997) to measure frequency of peer victimization	Self	The School Climate Scale (Benbenishty, 2003) to assess teacher support	Self	-.105 (V)
Kremer, 2010	153	USA	Elementary	47.1% female	42% Hispanic, 46% White, 2% African American, 4% Native American, 1% Asian, 5% Biracial	This Child's Interactions with Peers Scale (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002) to assess frequency of peer victimization	Teacher	Truncated version of Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1994), to assess closeness, and conflict	Teacher	-.151 (V)
Kuhns, 2008	697	USA	Elementary	47.4% female	34.1% White, 37.4% Hispanic, 23.2% African-American, 3.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, .3% Native American/Alaskan Native, 1.5% Other	Peer nomination procedure to assess aggressive behaviour of classmates	Peer	Teacher Student Relationship Inventory (TSRI; Hughes et al., 2001) to assess teacher support and conflict;Peer nomination procedure to assess teacher support of classmates	Teacher; Peer	-.266 (P)
Lam et al., 2017	454	Hong Kong	Middle; Secondary	49.4% female	All Chinese	Several scales to assess frequency of peer aggression and victimization (all scales Hill & Werner, 2006)	Self	Caring Adult Relationships in School Scale in California Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd, 2000) to assess teacher support for relatedness	Self	-.277 (P)-.218 (V)
Leadbeater et al., 2014	800	Canada	Elementary	51% female	95% European Caucasian, 2% Aboriginal, 1% Asian, 1% mixed ethnicity. Less than 1% Hispanic, Indo-Canadian, or African Canadian.	Social Experience Questionnaire (SEQ, Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) to assess frequency of peer victimization experiences	Self	Student-teacher relations aspect of School Climate Survey (Haynes et al., 1993) to assess closeness and trust in TSR	Self	-.277 (P)
Lohbeck & Petermann, 2018	332	Germany	Middle; Secondary	54.5% female		Created new scales to assess various forms of cyber-victimization	Self	Adapted from Teacher-Student Relationship Questionnaire of PISA (Kunter et al., 2002) to assess quality and caring in TSR	Self	-.125 (P)
Longobardi et al., 2018	435	Italy	Middle; Secondary	48.8% female	4.4% of sample consisted of 1st of 2nd generation immigrants.	Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (OBVQ; Olweus, 1996) and Participant Role Scale (PRS; Jungert et al., 2016) to assess involvement in bullying behaviour and victimization	Self	Student Perception of Affective Relationship with Teacher Scale (SPARTS; Koomen & Jellesma, 2015) to assess closeness, conflict, and negative expectations within TSR	Self	-.139 (P)
Lucas-Molina et al., 2015	1864	Spain	Elementary	50.7% female		Adapted from another study (Defensor del Menor de la Comunidad de Madrid, 2006) to assess frequency of victimization and peer aggression	Self	Adapted from Benbenishty and Astor (2005) to assess student perceived teacher support in TSR;Student-to-teacher aggression scale (Mendoza, 2006), to assess frequency of aggressive behaviours towards teacher by student;Direct and indirect teacher-to-student aggression scale (Mendoza, 2006) to assessed frequency of teacher aggressive behaviour towards student	Self	-.020 (P)-.095 (V)
Mann et al., 2015	7084	Iceland	Middle; Secondary	51.5% female		Developed by Icelandic Institute for Educational Research (IER) and ICSRA to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization	Self	No specific scale indicated to assess quality of TSR	Self	.075 (P).016 (V)
Marachi et al., 2007	8404	Israel	Middle; Secondary	50% female		Adapted from California School Climate Survey (Furlong, 1999) to assess presence of victimization	Self	Adapted from California School Climate Survey (Furlong, 1999) to assess teacher support	Self	-.430 (V)
McAuliffe et al., 2009	127	USA	Elementary	49.6% female	32.3% European American, 31.5% African American, 25.2% Hispanic/Latino, 3.2% another race. 6.3% more than one race, 1.6% no response	Peer nomination procedure (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) to assess peer aggression in classmates	Peer	No specific scale indicated to assess teacher liking for each individual student	Teacher	-.604 (P)
Meehan et al., 2003	140	USA	Elementary	33.6% female	37% Caucasian, 41% African American, 22% Hispanic.	Modified version of Revised Class Play Method (Masten et al., 1985) to assess relational aggressive behaviour in classmates	Peer	Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) to assess aspects of support from teacher including	Self	.030 (P)
Moore et al., 2017	761	USA	Middle/Secondary	25.6% female	11.4% (133) Other, 13.1% (153) Black, 14.1% (165)White, 10.9% (128) Mixed, 50.5% (590) Hispanic	California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS; WestEd, 2000) to assess frequency of victimization	Self	California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS; WestEd, 2000) to assess caring relationships with teacher	Self	.121 (V)
Murray-Harvey & Slee, 2010	888	Australia	Middle; Secondary	49% female	No specific data on sample - population typically Anglo-European, with minority of Asian, Middle-Eastern, and Indigenous Australian students.	Your Life at School questionnaire to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization	Self	Your Life at School questionnaire to measure presence of stressfulness and supportiveness in TSR	Self	-.321 (P)-.215 (V)
Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016	2128	Belgium	Middle; Secondary	50.5% female	94.8% Belgian nationality.	No specific scale mentioned to assess frequency of cyber-bullying, cybervictimization, traditional bullying, and traditional bullying victimization	Self	Adapted Dutch language school commitment scale (Murdock & Phelps, 1973) to assess student bonding to teacher	Self	-.094 (P).031 (V)
Raskauskas et al., 2010	1168	New Zealand	Elementary	52% female	Although no data collected here, sample represented ethnic makeup of New Zealand school pop.:70% European, 15% Maori, 10% Asian, 5% Pacific nations.	Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ; Rigby 1997) to assess prevalence of bullying and victimization	Self	Student-teacher relationships subscale from Safe Communities -Safe Schools survey (Elliott et al., 2000) to assess quality of TSR	Self	-.203 (P)-.030 (V)
Reavis et al., 2010	218	USA	Elementary	56% female	64% Caucasian	Peer nomination procedure (Coie et al., 1982) to assess peer victimization	Peer	Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess conflict and closeness in TSR	Teacher	-.030 (V)
Richard et al., 2011	18 222	France	Middle; Secondary	52% female	85% Caucasian	Scale developed by Dauphin and Trosseille (2004) to assess peer victimization	Self	Scale developed by Dauphin and Trosseille (2004) to measure quality of TSR	Self	-.202 (P)
Rigby & Bagshaw, 2003	3551	Australia	Middle; Secondary			No specific scale indicated (e.g., Rigby & Bagshaw, 2001) to assess frequency of indirect bullying perpetration and victimization	Self	Created own scale for study to assess perceived helpfulness and fair treatment of teachers	Self	-.141 (P)-.070 (V)
Roth et al., 2010	725	Israel	Middle; Secondary	50% female		Scale developed by Rolider et al. (2001) to assess frequency of peer aggression	Self	Created own measure from Assor et al. (2002) Roth et al. (2007) and the Learning Climate Questionnaire (Williams & Deci, 1996) to assess student perception of teacher supporting student autonomy	Self	-.266 (P)
Rucinski, 2015	526	USA	Elementary	53.8% female	44.5% (234) Hispanic, 18.1% (95) Black, 11.8% (62) White, 25.5% (134) Other racial-ethnic groups (approx. 95% of Other group identified as Asian/Pacific Islander).	Aggression Scale (Orpinas and Frankowski, 2001) to assess frequency of peer aggression	Self	Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness and conflict of TSR;Drawn from Classroom Assessment Scoring System to assess trust and emotional support (Pianta et al., 2010)	Teacher; Self	-.131 (P)
Rudasill et al., 2017	1364	USA	Elementary	48.3% female, 1 missing	80% (1097)White, 13% (176) Black, 7% (91) Hispanic, Asian American, or American Indian.	Adapted from Child Behaviour Scale (Ladd & Profilet, 1996), Peer Victimization Scale (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), and Relational Aggression scale (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) to assess bullying perpetration and victimization	Teacher	Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness and conflict of TSR	Teacher	-.100 (P)-.090 (V)
Runions & Shaw, 2013	377	Australia	Elementary	50.1% female	Most spoke English in home. Non-English speakers were representative of immigration to Western Australia.	Derived from the Social Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ; Tremblay et al., 1991) to assess physical peer aggression	Teacher	Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta, 2001) to assess closeness and conflict in TSR	Teacher	-.192 (P)
Serdiouk et al., 2016	1568	USA	Elementary	48.8% female	47% European American, 35% African American, 10% Hispanic, 4% Other	Olweus Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess frequency of peer victimization	Self	Created own scale resembling closeness subscale of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) to assess closeness and avoidance in TSR	Teacher	-.070 (V)
Sulkowski & Simmons, 2017	539	USA	Middle; Secondary	51% female	43% (236) Hispanic/Latino, 27% (145) White/Caucasian, 8% (41) Black/African American, 4% (19) Asian American, 2% (8) Native American/American Indian, 1% (4) Pacific Islander, 4% (19) Other.	Peer Victimization scale on Revised Peer Experiences Questionnaire (RPEQ; Prinstein et al., 2001) to assess frequency victimization	Self	Teacher-Student Relationships subscale on School Climate Measure (SCM; Zullig et al., 2010) to assess quality of TSR	Self	-.424 (P)
Tanigawa, 2009	544	USA	Middle; Secondary	56% female	40% Hispanic/Latino, 29% White, 20% Multi-ethnic, 5% Asian, 2% Black/African American, <1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, <1% Other.	Victim scale of the California Bully/Victim Scale (Furlong et al., 2007) to assess frequency of peer victimization	Self	Child and Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS; Malecki et al., 2000) to assess perceived social support from teachers	Self	-.472 (V)
Thornberg et al., 2017	899	Sweden	Elementary	48.4% female	Majority Swedish background, 16% had immigrant background.	Created own measure (Thornberg et al., 2017) to assess prevalence of peer victimization	Self	Adopted the Class relational climate scale (Thornberg et al., 2017) to assess quality of TSR	Self	-.388 (V)
Troop-Gordon & Kopp, 2011	410	USA	Elementary	52.9% female	87.1% European American, 1% African-American, 1.2% Asian-American, 4.6% Native American, 1% Hispanic, 5.1% mixed ethnic background.	Peer rating derived from Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd's (2002) scales to assess frequency of peer aggression and victimization	Peer	Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) to assess closeness and conflict	Teacher	-.123 (P)
Troop-Gordon & Kuntz, 2013	352	USA	Elementary	52.8% female	88% Caucasian, .9% Asian-American, .6% African-American, 1.4% Hispanic, 4.6% Native American, 4.6% mixed or other ethnicity.	Adapted from Multi-Informant Peer Victimization Inventory (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002) to assess peer harassment	Self	Items taken from the Student-Teacher Relationship scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992) to assess closeness and conflict in TSR	Self	-.020 (V)
Unal & Cukur, 2011	3742	Turkey	Middle; Secondary	48% female		No specific measure indicated to assess frequency of victimization	Self	Adopted from Richmond Youth Project (Hirschi, 1969) to assess student attachment to teacher	Self	-.192 (V)
Valle et al., 2018	426	Brazil	Middle; Secondary	58% female		School Violence Scale (Stelko-Pereira et al., 2010) to assess prevalence of bullying perpetration and victimization	Self	Teacher-Student Relationship Scale (Lamas et al., 2013) to assess closeness and conflict in TSR	Self	-.310 (P)-.266 (V)
Wang et al., 2015	435	USA	Middle; Secondary	56.8% female	71.3% Caucasian, 6% African American, 4.1% Asian American, 3.4% Hispanic, 1.4% Eastern European.	Verbal and Physical Bullying Scale (VPBS; Swearer et al., 2008; Radliff et al., 2016) to assess bullying perpetration	Self	School Climate Survey Revised Edition - Elementary and Middle School Version (SCS-ESV; Emmons et al., 2002) to assess teacher-student relationship quality	Self	-.208 (P)
Wang et al., 2018	1148	China	Elementary	45% female		Delaware Bullying Victimization Scale (Bear et al., 2011) to assess perceived bullying victimization	Self	Delaware School Climate Survey (Bear et al., 2011) to assess teacher-student relationship quality	Self	-.239 (V)
Wang et al., 2016	1075	USA	Elementary	50% female	48.1% White/European American, 28.7% Black/African American, 11% Hispanic, 7.3% Asian, .4% American Indian, 4.5% multiracial.	No specific scale indicated to assess prevalence of peer victimization	Self	No specific scale indicated, assessed teacher preference for each child, 1 item (5-point scale);No specific scale indicated, assessed student perceived relationship quality with teacher,	Teacher; Self	-.100 (V)
Yang, 2015	25 896	USA	Middle; Secondary	51.5% female	45.4% Caucasian, 24.6% African American, 14.6% Hispanic/Latino, 3.55% Asian, 11.9% Other	Delaware Bullying Victimization Scale - Student (DBCS-S; Bear et al., 2014) to assess frequency of bullying victimization	Self	Teacher-Student Relationships subscale of Delaware School Climate Survey - Student (DSCS-S; Bear et al., 2014), assessed quality of interactions between teachers and students, 4 items (4-point scale)	Self	-.141 (V)
Yeung & Leadbeater, 2010	664	Canada	Middle; Secondary	51.5% female	86% Caucasian, 4% Asian, 2% Aboriginal, 1% Hispanic, 1% African, 1% East Indian, 1% Middle Eastern, 4% Other	Relational victimization and physical victimization subscales of Social Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) to assess frequency of peer victimization	Self	No specific scale indicated, assessed teacher emotional support and reciprocity as perceived by student, 3 items (5-point scale)	Self	-.151 (V)
Zanden et al., 2015	781	Netherlands	Elementary	49.9% female		Bullying others' and 'victim of bullying' subscale of Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1989) to assess frequency of bullying perpetration and victimization	Self; Self	Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI; Wubbels et al., 2006) to assess aspects of closeness and conflict	Self	-.133 (P)-.157 (V)

Geographical Region	Number of Studies	Number of Participants
By Country
Australia	3	4816
Belgium	1	2128
Brazil	1	426
Canada	5	3370
China	3	2349
France	1	18 222
Germany	1	332
Iceland	1	7084
Israel	3	13 524
Italy	2	1169
Japan	1	2970
Netherlands	1	781
New Zealand	1	1168
Norway	5	8559
South Korea	2	2984
Spain	2	2837
Sweden	1	899
Turkey	1	3742
United Kingdom	1	364
USA	31	271 953
By Continent
North America	36	275 323
South America	1	42 6
Europe	17	46117
Asia	9	21 827
Australia	4	5984

Peer Aggression and Teacher-Student Relationships	School Level Category
Elementary	-.173	15	-.127	19
Intermediate/Secondary	-.191	27	-.174	29
Q	.096	1.770
	Same Informant Category
	P/TSRclos	k	V/TSRclos	k
Self	-.202	3	-.145	8
Other	-.161	7	-.090	4
Q	2.508	5.800*
	Cross-Informant Category
	P/TSRclos	k	V/TSRclos	k
Same			-.138	12
Mixed			-.077	3
Q		7.211*
	Measure Category
	P/TSRclos	k	V/TSRclos	k
Established	-.199	28	-.176	29
Novel	-.197	6	-.114	8
Q	.001	2.228
	Data Type Category
	P/TSRclos	k	V/TSRclos	k
Correlation coefficient (un-transformed)	-.206	36	−156	40
Beta (transformed)	-.061	6	-.158	8
Q	4.208*	.001

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The study was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Counsel Canadian Graduate Scholarship – Master's.

Ethics Approval

This was a meta-analysis using already published data. No ethics approval was required.

ORCID iD

Amanda Krause

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Amanda Krause, is a doctoral student in the Clinical Psychology program at the University of Ottawa. Her research focuses on exploring developmental trajectories of children and adolescents from a systems perspective. Specifically, she is interested in investigating how relationship quality with important others (e.g., teachers, peers), can influence functioning, particularly in the school context.

J. David Smith, PhD, is Professor of Counselling Psychology at the University of Ottawa. He conducts research on school-based bullying prevention programs and school climate. He is particularly interested in the role of student-teacher relationships and their potential to mitigate bullying, and he studies and writes about these phenomena within a social-ecological development framework.

References

* Aceves

M. J.

Hinshaw

S. P.

Mendoza-Denton

Page-Gould

(2009). Seek help from teachers or fight back? Student perceptions of teachers’ actions during conflicts and responses to peer victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(6), 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9441-9

Achenbach

T. M.

McConaughy

S. H.

Howell

C. T.

(1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213

* Akiba

Shimizu

Zhuang

(2010). Bullies, victims, and teachers in Japanese middle schools. Comparative Education Review, 54(3), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1086/653142

Armstrong

J. M.

Goldstein

L. H.

(2003). Manual for the MacArthur Health and Behavior Questionnaire (HBQ 1.0). University of Pittsburgh, MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology and Development.

Assor

Kaplan

Roth

(2002). Choice is good but relevance is excellent: Autonomy affecting teacher behaviors that predict students’ engagement in learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883

Austin

Duerr

(2005). Guidebook for the California Healthy Kids Survey. Part III: School Climate Survey for teachers and other staff. 2005-2006 edition. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED486328.

* Bacchini

Esposito

Affuso

(2009). Social experience and school bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.975

* Bae

Choo

Lim

(2018). Bullying experience of racial and ethnic minority youth in South Korea. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(4), 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431618776121

Bandyopadhyay

Cornell

D. G.

Konold

T. R.

(2009). Validity of three school climate scales to assess bullying, aggressive attitudes, and help seeking. School Psychology Review, 38(3), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087819

10.

* Bardack

Obradović

(2017). Emotional behavior problems, parent emotion socialization, and gender as determinants of teacher–child closeness. Early Education and Development, 28(5), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1279530

11.

Battistich

Schaps

Wilson

(2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’ “connectedness” to school and social adjustment during middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPP.0000018048.38517.cd

12.

Bear

Gaskins

Blank

Chen

(2011). Delaware school climate survey—student: Its factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School Psychology, 49(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001

13.

Bear

Yang

Mantz

Pasipanodya

Hearn

Boyer

(2014). Technical manual for Delaware School Survey: Scales of school climate, bullying victimization, student engagement, and positive, punitive, and social emotional learning techniques. Retrieved from: Delaware Positive Behavior Supports Project website: https://wordpress.oet.udel.edu/pbs/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Technical-Manual-DE-School-Survey-Final-12.814.pdf

14.

Behar

Stringfield

(1974). A behavior rating scale for the preschool child. Developmental Psychology, 10(5), 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037058

15.

* Beran

(2009). Correlates of peer victimization and achievement: An exploratory model. Psychology in the Schools, 46(4), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20380

16.

Berger

K. S.

(2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review, 27(1), 90–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.08.002

17.

Benbenishty

(2003). A national study of school violence in Israel. Israeli Ministry of Education.

18.

Benbenishty

Astor

R. A.

(2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. Oxford University Press.

19.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

20.

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

Rothstein

(2013) Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 3) [Computer software]. Biostat. https://www.meta-analysis.com/

21.

Borenstein

Higgins

J. P.

Hedges

L. V.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2016). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230

22.

Bouchard

K. L.

Smith

J. D.

(2017). Teacher–student relationship quality and children’s bullying experiences with peers: Reflecting on the mesosystem. The Educational Forum, 81(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2016.1243182

23.

Boulton

M. J.

Smith

P. K.

(1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1994.tb00637.x

24.

* Boulton

Woodmansey

Williams

Spells

Nicholas

Laxton

Duke

(2012). Associations between peer bullying and classroom concentration: Evidence for mediation by perceived personal safety and relationship with teacher. Educational Psychology, 32(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.648903

25.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1, Attachment. Basic Books.

26.

* Boyesen

Bru

(1999). Small school classes, small problems? School Psychology International, 20(4), 338–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034399204002

27.

* Brendgen

Boivin

Dionne

Barker

E. D.

Vitaro

Girard

Pérusse

(2011). Gene-environment processes linking aggression, peer victimization, and the teacher-child relationship. Child Development, 82(6), 2021–2036. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01644.x

28.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

29.

Brown

B. B.

Larson

(2009). Peer relationships in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (Vol. 2, pp. 74–103). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002004

30.

* Bru

Stephens

Torsheim

(2002). Students’ perceptions of class management and reports of their own misbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 40(4), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00104-8

31.

California Department of Education. (2010). California Healthy Kids Survey, student well-being in California, 2008-10: Statewide elementary results. San Francisco: WestEd Health and Development Program for the California Department of Education. http://chks.wested.org/reports/Human.

32.

Card

N. A.

(2011). Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research. Guilford Publications.

33.

* Cho

Wooldredge

(2017). Lifestyles, informal controls, and youth victimization risk in South Korea and the United States. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(4), 1358–1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0973-4

34.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Coppotelli

(1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557

35.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

36.

Cohen

Wills

T. A.

(1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.98.2.310

37.

Cornell

D. G.

Brockenbrough

(2004). Identification of bullies and victims: A comparison of methods. Journal of School Violence, 3(2-3), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/j202v03n02_05

38.

Cornell

Huang

Konold

Meyer

Lacey

Nekvasil

Heilbrun

Shukla

(2013). Technical report of the Virginia secondary school climate survey: 2013 Results for 7^th and 8^th grade students and teachers. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia.

39.

* Cornell

Shukla

Konold

(2015). Peer victimization and authoritative school climate: A multilevel approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1186–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000038

40.

* Cortes

K. I.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2014). To tell or not to tell: What influences children’s decisions to report bullying to their teachers? School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000078

41.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x

42.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1996). Children's treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400007148

43.

Csuti

(2008). The Colorado trust bullying prevention initiative staff survey. Retrieved from: https://www.coloradotrust.org/repository/initiatives/pdfs/BPI/Evaluations/BPI%20Staff%20Survey.pdf

44.

* Datta

Cornell

Huang

(2017). The toxicity of bullying by teachers and other school staff. School Psychology Review, 46(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-2017-0001.v46-4

45.

Dauphin

Trosseille

(2004). Les compétences générales des élèves en fin de collège.Note Evaluation[General skills of students in the last year of junior high-school]. Direction de l’Evaluation et la Prospective du Ministère de l’Education Nationale.

46.

* Davidson

L. M.

Demaray

M. K.

(2007). Social support as a moderator between victimization and internalizing-externalizing distress from bullying. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 383.

47.

Davis

H. A.

(2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3804_2

48.

Defensor del Menor de la Comunidad de Madrid (2006). Convivencia y confrontaci on entre iguales [Coexistence and confrontation between peers]. Publicaciones del Defensor del Menor de la Comunidad de Madrid.

49.

Demaray

M. K.

Malecki

C. K.

Secord

S. M.

Lyell

K. M.

(2013). Agreement among students’, teachers’, and parents’ perceptions of victimization by bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2091–2100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.018

50.

* Di Stasio

M. R.

Savage

Burgos

(2016). Social comparison, competition, and teacher–student relationships in junior high school classrooms predicts bullying and victimization. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.002

51.

* Doty

J. L.

Gower

A. L.

Rudi

J. H.

Mcmorris

B. J.

Borowsky

I. W.

(2017). Patterns of bullying and sexual harassment: Connections with parents and teachers as direct protective factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(11), 2289–2304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0698-0

52.

* Doumas

D. M.

Midgett

(2019). The effects of students’ perceptions of teachers’ antibullying behavior on bullying victimization: Is sense of school belonging a mediator? Journal of Applied School Psychology, 35(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2018.1479911

53.

Due

Holstein

B. E.

Lynch

Diderichsen

Gabhain

S. N.

Scheidt

Currie

(2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: International comparative cross-sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki105

54.

Egger

Smith

G. D.

Schneider

Minder

(1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

55.

* Elledge

L. C.

Elledge

A. R.

Newgent

R. A.

Cavell

T. A.

(2016). Social risk and peer victimization in elementary school children: protective role of teacher-student relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(4), 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0074-z

56.

Elliott

D. S.

Grady

J. M.

Shaw

T. E.

Beaulieu

M. T.

(2000). Safe communities, safe schools planning guide: A tool for community violence prevention. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

57.

* Elsaesser

Gorman-Smith

Henry

(2013). The role of the school environment in relational aggression and victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9839-7

58.

Emmons

C. L.

Haynes

N. M.

Comer

J. P.

(2002). The school climate survey revised-elementary and middle school version. Yale University Child Study Center.

59.

* Ertesvåg

S. K.

(2016). Students who bully and their perceptions of teacher support and monitoring. British Educational Research Journal, 42(5), 826–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3240

60.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2–3), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_08

61.

* Espelage

D. L.

Polanin

J. R.

Low

S. K.

(2014). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000072

62.

Farrell

A. D.

Kung

E. M.

White

K. S.

Valois

(2000). The structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(2), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2902_13

63.

* Flaspohler

P. D.

Elfstrom

J. L.

Vanderzee

K. L.

Sink

H. E.

Birchmeier

(2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46(7), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20404

64.

Furlong

M.J.

(1999). California school climate and safety survey .

65.

Furlong

M. J.

Greif

J. L.

Bates

M. P.

Whipple

A. D.

Jimenez

T. C.

Morrison

(2005). Development of the California school climate and safety survey-short form. Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20053

66.

Furlong

M. J.

Sharkey

J. D.

Tanigawa

Felix

(2007, March). Bullying assessment: How to accurately identify bullies and their victims. Paper presented at the convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, New York.

67.

Furman

Buhrmester

(1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1016–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016

68.

Gest

S. D.

Rodkin

P. C.

(2011). Teaching practices and elementary classroom peer ecologies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.004

69.

Goodenow

(1993). The psychological sense of school membership among adolescents: Scale development and educational correlates. Psychology in the Schools, 30(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199301)30:1<79::AID-PITS2310300113>3.0.CO;2-X

70.

Gottfredson

G. D.

(1999). User’s manual for the Effective School Battery. Gottfredson Associates.

71.

* Gyllborg

A. B.

(2013). The role of TSRs as a moderator for the associations between relational aggression and victimization and internalizing and externalizing problems (Masters thesis, Northern Illinois University).

72.

Harel-Fisch

Walsh

S. D.

Fogel-Grinvald

Amitai

Pickett

Molcho

Due

de Matos

M. G.

Craig

, & Members of the HBSC Violence and Injury Prevention Focus Group. (2011). Negative school perceptions and involvement in school bullying: A universal relationship across 40 countries. Journal of Adolescence, 34(4), 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.09.008

73.

* Havik

(2017). Bullying victims’ perceptions of classroom interaction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(3), 350–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1294609

74.

Haynes

N. M.

Emmons

Comer

J. P.

(1993). Elementary and middle school climate survey. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University Child Study Center.

75.

Hedges

L. V.

Vevea

J. L.

(1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486

76.

Hendrickx

M. M. H. G.

Mainhard

Boor-Klip

H. J.

Brekelmans

(2017). Our teacher likes you, so I like you: A social network approach to social referencing. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.02.004

77.

Hendrickx

M. M. H. G.

Mainhard

M. T.

Boor-Klip

H. J.

Cillessen

A. H. M.

Brekelmans

(2016). Social dynamics in the classroom: Teacher support and conflict and the peer ecology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.10.004

78.

* Herrero

Estévez

Musitu

(2006). The relationships of adolescent school-related deviant behaviour and victimization with psychological distress: Testing a general model of the mediational role of parents and teachers across groups of gender and age. Journal of Adolescence, 29(5), 671–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.015

79.

Hill

L. G.

Werner

N. E.

(2006). Affiliative motivation, school attachment, and aggression in school. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20140

80.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

81.

Holfeld

Leadbeater

B. J.

(2017). Concurrent and longitudinal associations between early adolescents’ experiences of school climate and cyber victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.037

82.

Hughes

J. N.

Cavell

T. A.

Jackson

(1999). Influence of the teacher-student relationship in childhood conduct problems: A prospective study. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2802_5

83.

Hughes

J. N.

Cavell

T. A.

Willson

(2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the teacher–student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00074-7

84.

Hughes

J. N.

Chen

(2011). Reciprocal effects of student–teacher and student–peer relatedness: Effects on academic self efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(5), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.03.005

85.

* Idsoe

Solli

Cosmovici

E. M.

(2008). Social psychological processes in family and school: More evidence on their relative etiological significance for bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(5), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20259

86.

* Iimori

(2002). The relationship between school attachment and self-reported peer aggression and victimization among middle grade students in Catholic elementary schools (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville).

87.

Jennings

P. A.

Greenberg

M. T.

(2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693

88.

Jia

Zhou

Wang

Sun

(2017). Psychological security and deviant peer affiliation as mediators between teacher-student relationship and adolescent Internet addiction. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.063

89.

* Jia

Zhou

Wang

Sun

Zhao

(2018). Peer victimization and adolescent internet addiction: The mediating role of psychological security and the moderating role of teacher-student relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.042

90.

Jungert

Piroddi

Thornberg

(2016). Early adolescents’ motivations to defend victims in school bullying and their perceptions of student–teacher relationships: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.09.00

91.

Kelly

E. V.

Newton

N. C.

Stapinski

L. A.

Slade

Barrett

E. L.

Conrod

P. J.

Teesson

(2015). Suicidality, internalizing problems and externalizing problems among adolescent bullies, victims and bully-victims. Preventive Medicine, 73, 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.01.020

92.

Kennedy

R. S.

(2021). Bullying trends in the United States: A meta-regression. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 914–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019888555

93.

* Khoury-Kassabri

(2011). Student victimization by peers in elementary schools: Individual, teacher-class, and school-level predictors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(4), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.004

94.

Kimberlin

C. L.

Winterstein

A. G.

(2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(23), 2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364

95.

Kochenderfer

B. J.

Ladd

G. W.

(1996). Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67(4), 1305–1317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01797.x

96.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2004). Peer victimization: The role of emotions in adaptive and maladaptive coping. Social Development, 13(3), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00271.x

97.

Koomen

H. M.

Jellesma

F. C.

(2015). Can closeness, conflict, and dependency be used to characterize students’ perceptions of the affective relationship with their teacher? Testing a new child measure in middle childhood. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12094

98.

* Kremer

P. K.

(2010). Quality of teacher-student relationships: Moderator of the effects of peer victimization (Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, USA).

99.

* Kuhns

C. I.

(2008). The effects of normative classroom aggression and teacher support on changes in ethnically diverse elementary students’ aggression (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University).

100.

Kunter

Schümer

Artelt

Baumert

Klieme

Neubrand

Prenzel

Schiefele

Schneider

Stanat

Tillmann

K. J.

Weiß

(2002). PISA 2000: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [Documentation of the measures]. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung.

101.

Ladd

G. W.

Kochenderfer-Ladd

(2002). Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological assessment, 14(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.14.1.74

102.

Ladd

G. W.

Profilet

S. M.

(1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children's aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1008–1024. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1008

103.

Lamas

K. C. A.

Freitas

E. R.

Barbosa

A. J. G.

(2013). Bullying e relação professor-aluno: percepções de estudantes do Ensino Fundamental [Bullying and the teacher-student relationship: Perceptions of elementary school students]. Psico, 44(2), 263–272.

104.

* Lam

Law

Chan

Zhang

Wong

B. P.

(2017). Will victims become aggressors or vice versa? A cross-lagged analysis of school aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-017-0298-1

105.

Lavy

Naama-Ghanayim

(2020). Why care about caring? Linking teachers’ caring and sense of meaning at work with students’ self-esteem, well-being, and school engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 103046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103046

106.

* Leadbeater

Sukhawathanakul

Smith

Bowen

(2014). Reciprocal associations between interpersonal and values dimensions of school climate and peer victimization in elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 480–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.873985

107.

Hughes

J. N.

Kwok

Hsu

(2012). Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of child, teacher, and peer reports of teacher–student support. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024481

108.

Zhao

Zhou

Sun

Wang

(2017). Linking multiple risk exposure profiles with adolescent Internet addiction: Insights from the person-centered approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.063

109.

* Lohbeck

Petermann

(2018). Cybervictimization, self-esteem, and social relationships among German secondary school students. Journal of School Violence, 17(4), 472–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2018.1428194

110.

* Longobardi

Iotti

Jungert

Settanni

(2018). Student-teacher relationships and bullying: The role of student social status. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.001

111.

* Lucas-Molina

Williamson

A. A.

Pulido

Pérez-Albéniz

(2015). Effects of teacher-student relationships on peer harassment: A multilevel study. Psychology in the Schools, 52(3), 298–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21822

112.

Lynch

Cicchetti

(1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)00031-3

113.

Malecki

C. K.

Demaray

M. K.

Elliott

S. N.

(2000). The child and adolescent social support scale. Northern Illinois University.

114.

* Mann

M. J.

Kristjansson

A. L.

Sigfusdottir

I. D.

Smith

M. L.

(2015). The role of community, family, peer, and school factors in group bullying: Implications for school-based intervention. Journal of School Health, 85(7), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12270

115.

* Marachi

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishty

(2007). Effects of student participation and teacher support on victimization in Israeli schools: An examination of gender, culture, and school type. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9136-4

116.

Masten

A. S.

Morison

Pellegrini

D. S.

(1985). A revised class play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.523

117.

* McAuliffe

M. D.

Hubbard

J. A.

Romano

L. J.

(2009). The role of teacher cognition and behavior in children’s peer relations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9305-5

118.

Meadows

D. H.

(2008). In Wright

(Ed.), Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

119.

* Meehan

B. T.

Hughes

J. N.

Cavell

T. A.

(2003). Teacher-student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74(4), 1145–1157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00598

120.

Mejia

T. M.

Hoglund

W. L. G.

(2016). Do children's adjustment problems contribute to teacher–child relationship quality? Support for a child-driven model. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 34, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.08.003

121.

Mendoza

(2006). Las dos caras de la violencia escolar: El maltrato en la interaccion profesor-alumno y entre iguales [The two faces of school violence: Bullying in teacher-student and peer-to-peer interactions]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Complutense of Madrid.

122.

Midgley

Eccles

J. S.

Feldlaufer

(1991). Classroom environment and the transition to junior high school. In Fraser

B. J.

Walberg

H. J.

(Eds.), Educational environments: Evolution, antecedents, and consequences. Pergamon Press.

123.

* Moore

Benbenishty

Astor

R. A.

Rice

(2017). The positive role of school climate on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending homeless youth. Journal of School Violence, 17(3), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1322518

124.

Moore

S. E.

Norman

R. E.

Suetani

Thomas

H. J.

Sly

P. D.

Scott

J. G.

(2018). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60

125.

Murdock

Phelps

(1973). Mass media and the secondary school. Macmillan.

126.

* Murray-Harvey

Slee

P. T.

(2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310366206

127.

Mynard

Joseph

(2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 26(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:2<169::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-A

128.

Olweus

(1986). The Olweus bully-victim questionnaire. University of Bergen.

129.

Olweus

(1989). The Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo.

130.

Olweus

(1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen.

131.

Olweus

(2007). Olweus Bullying Questionnaire®: Standard school report. Hazelden Publishing.

132.

Orpinas

Frankowski

(2001). The Aggression Scale: A self-report measure of aggressive behavior for young adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431601021001003

133.

* Pabian

Vandebosch

(2016). Short-term longitudinal relationships between adolescents’ (cyber)bullying perpetration and bonding to school and teachers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415573639

134.

Perry

D. G.

Kusel

S. J.

Perry

L. C.

(1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.807

135.

Peterson

R. A.

Brown

S. P.

(2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175

136.

Pianta

R. C.

(1994). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(94)90026-4\

137.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

138.

Pianta

R. C.

Hamre

B. K.

Mintz

S. L.

(2010). Classroom Assessment Scoring System manual–Upper elementary. University of Virginia.

139.

Pianta

R. C.

Steinberg

(1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. In Pianta

R. C.

(Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's lives (pp. 61–80). Jossey-Bass.

140.

Pianta

R. C.

Steinberg

M. S.

Rollins

K. B.

(1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006519

141.

Pianta

R. C.

Stuhlman

M. W.

(2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086261

142.

PREVNet (2019). The Role of Teachers and Other School Staff in Bullying Prevention. Retrieved on August 31, 2022 at https://www.prevnet.ca/sites/prevnet.ca/files/fact-sheet/PREVNet-SAMHSA-Factsheet-The-Role-of-Teachers-and-Other-Staff-in-Bullying-Prevention.pdf

143.

Prinstein

M. J.

Boergers

Vernberg

E. M.

(2001). Overt and relational aggression in adolescents: Social-psychological functioning of aggressors and victims. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3004_05

144.

Radliff

K. M.

Wang

Swearer

S. M.

(2016). Bullying and peer victimization: An examination of cognitive and psychosocial constructs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(11), 1983–2005.

145.

Raine

Dodge

Loeber

Gatzke-Kopp

Lynam

Reynolds

Stouthamer-Loeber

Liu

(2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20115

146.

* Raskauskas

J. L.

Gregory

Harvey

S. T.

Rifshana

Evans

I. M.

(2010). Bullying among primary school children in New Zealand: Relationships with prosocial behaviour and classroom climate. Educational Research, 52(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881003588097

147.

* Reavis

R. D.

Keane

S. P.

Calkins

S. D.

(2010). Trajectories of peer victimization: The role of multiple relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56(3), 303–332. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.0.0055

148.

Reynolds

W. M.

(2003). Reynolds bully-victimization scales for schools. The Psychological Corporation.

149.

* Richard

J. F.

Schneider

B. H.

Mallet

(2011). Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034311415906

150.

Rigby

(1997). Manual for the Peer Relations Questionnaire (PRQ). The Professional Reading Guide.

151.

Rigby

Bagshaw

(2001). What hurts: The reported consequences of negative interactions with peers among Australian adolescent school children. Children Australia, 26(4), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200010464

152.

* Rigby

Bagshaw

(2003). Prospects of adolescent students collaborating with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conflict in schools. Educational Psychology, 23(5), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000123787

153.

Roland

. (1999). School influences on bullying (Doctoral dissertation, Durham University).

154.

Roland

Idsøe

(2001). Aggression and bullying. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 27(6), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.1029

155.

Rolider

Lapidot

Levy

(2001). The bullying phenomenon in Israeli school settings research report . Jerusalem: Ministry of Education (Hebrew).

156.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2021). Student–teacher relationships and students’ externalizing and internalizing behaviors: A cross-lagged study in secondary education. Child Development, 92(1), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13394

157.

Rosenblatt

J. A.

Furlong

M. J.

(1997). Assessing the reliability and validity of student self-reports of campus violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024552531672

158.

Roth

Assor

Kanat-Maymon

Kaplan

(2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761

159.

* Roth

Kanat-Maymon

Bibi

(2010). Prevention of school bullying: The important role of autonomy-supportive teaching and internalization of pro-social values. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002003

160.

Roth

P. L.

I. S.

Van Iddekinge

C. H.

Bobko

(2018). Using beta coefficients to impute missing correlations in meta-analysis research: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(6), 644. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000293.supp

161.

* Rucinski

C. L.

(2015). Teacher-child relationships, classroom emotional climate, and elementary students’ social-emotional and academic development (Masters thesis, Fordham university).

162.

* Rudasill

K. M.

Snyder

K. E.

Levinson

Adelson

J. L.

(2017). Systems view of school climate: A theoretical framework for research. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9401-y.

163.

* Runions

K. C.

Shaw

(2013). Teacher–child relationship, child withdrawal and aggression in the development of peer victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2013.09.002

164.

Rupp

Elliott

S. N.

Gresham

F. M.

(2018). Assessing elementary students’ bullying and related social behaviors: Cross-informant consistency across school and home environments. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.08.028

165.

Sabol

T. J.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672262

166.

Salmivalli

Nieminen

(2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.90004

167.

Schoeler

Duncan

Cecil

C. M.

Ploubidis

G. B.

Pingault

J.-B.

(2018). Quasi-experimental evidence on short- and long-term consequences of bullying victimization: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1229–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000171

168.

* Serdiouk

Berry

Gest

S. D.

(2016). Teacher-child relationships and friendships and peer victimization across the school year. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 46, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.08.001

169.

Shakoor

Jaffee

S. R.

Andreou

Bowes

Ambler

A. P.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Arseneault

(2011). Mothers and children as informants of bullying victimization: Results from an epidemiological cohort of children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9463-5

170.

Sirriyeh

Lawton

Gardner

Armitage

(2011). Reviewing studies with diverse designs: The development and evaluation of a new tool. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(4), 746–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01662.x

171.

Smith

J. D.

Whitley

(2022). Teaching with Acceptance and Commitment: Building teachers’ social-emotional competencies for teaching effectiveness. The Educational Forum, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2022.2053620

172.

Smokowski

P. R.

Kopasz

K. H.

(2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/27.2.101

173.

Statistics Canada. (1999). National longitudinal survey of children and youth: Cycle three survey instruments . Human Resources Development Canada.

174.

Stelko-Pereira

A. C.

Williams

L. C. A.

Freitas

L. C.

(2010). Validade e consistência interna do questionário de investigação de prevalência de violência escolar: ver- são estudantes [Validity and internal consistency of the School Violence Prevalence Investigation Questionnaire - student version]. Avaliação Psicológica, 9(3), 403–411.

175.

Stockdale

M. S.

Hangaduambo

Duys

Larson

Sarvela

P. D.

(2002). Rural elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(4), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.26.4.3

176.

* Sulkowski

M. L.

Simmons

(2017). The protective role of teacher-student relationships against peer victimization and psychosocial distress. Psychology in the Schools, 55(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22086

177.

Sutton

Smith

Swettenham

(1999). Bullying and ‘theory of mind’: A critique of the ‘social skills deficit’ view of anti-social behavior. Social Development, 8, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00083

178.

Swearer

S. M.

(2008). Relational aggression: Not just a female issue. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 611–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.08.001

179.

* Tanigawa

D. A.

(2009). Perceived social support as a buffer against the manifestation of depressive symptoms for peer victims. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara).

180.

* Thornberg

Wänström

Pozzoli

Gini

(2017). Victim prevalence in bullying and its association with teacher–student and student–student relationships and class moral disengagement: A class-level path analysis. Research Papers in Education, 33(3), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1302499

181.

Tremblay

R. E.

Loeber

Gagnon

Charlebois

Larivee

LeBlanc

(1991). Disruptive boys with stable and unstable high fighting behavior patterns during junior elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00911232

182.

* Troop-Gordon

Kopp

(2011). Teacher-child relationship quality and children’s peer victimization and aggressive behavior in late childhood. Social Development, 20(3), 536–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00604.x

183.

* Troop-Gordon

Kuntz

K. J.

(2013). The unique and interactive contributions of peer victimization and teacher-child relationships to children’s school adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(8), 1191–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9776-2

184.

Ttofi

M. M.

Farrington

D. P.

(2008). Bullying: Short-term and long-term effects, and the importance of defiance theory in explanation and prevention. Victims & Offenders, 3(2-3), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802143397

185.

* Unal

Cukur

C. S.

(2011). The effects of school bonds, discipline techniques in school and victimization on delinquency of high school students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 560–570.

186.

UNESCO (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying . https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366483

187.

Vaillancourt

Hymel

McDougall

(2003). Bullying is power. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1300/j008v19n02_10

188.

* Valle

J. E.

Stelko-Pereira

A. C.

Peixoto

E. M.

Williams

L. C.

(2018). Influence of bullying and TSR on school engagement: Analysis of an explanatory model. Estudos De Psicologia (Campinas), 35(4), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000400008

189.

Vessels

(1998). Character and community development: A school planning and teacher training handbook. Praeger.

190.

Volk

A. A.

Veenstra

Espelage

D. L.

(2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003

191.

* Wang

Boyanton

Ross

A. S. M.

Liu

J. L.

Sullivan

Anh Do

(2018). School climate, victimization, and mental health outcomes among elementary school students in China. School Psychology International, 39(6), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318805517

192.

* Wang

Swearer

S. M.

Lembeck

Collins

Berry

(2015). Teachers matter: An examination of student-teacher relationships, attitudes toward bullying, and bullying behavior. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 31(3), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2015.1056923

193.

* Wang

Leary

K. A.

Taylor

L. C.

Derosier

M. E.

(2016). Peer and teacher preference, student–teacher relationships, student ethnicity, and peer victimization in elementary school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(5), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21922

194.

Watson

W. H.

(2012). Family systems. In Ramachandran

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Second Edition, pp. 184–193). Academic Press.

195.

WestEd (2000). California healthy kids survey. WestEd.

196.

Williams

G. C.

Deci

E. L.

(1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.767

197.

Williford

A. P.

Pianta

R. C.

(2020). Banking Time: A dyadic intervention to improve teacher-student relationships. In Reschly

Pohl

Christenson

(Eds.), Student Engagement. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37285-9_13

198.

J.-Y.

Hughes

J. N.

(2015). Teacher network of relationships inventory: Measurement invariance of academically at-risk students across ages 6 to 15. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000063

199.

Wubbels

Brekelmans

J. M. G.

den Brok

P. J.

van Tartwijk

J. W. F.

(2006). An international perspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands. In Evertson

Weinstein

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (1st ed, pp. 1161–1191). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

200.

Yang

Salmivalli

(2013). Different forms of bullying and victimization: Bully-victims versus bullies and victims. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(6), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.793596

201.

* Yang

(2015). Multilevel associations between bullying victimization, school engagement, and social-emotional learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware).

202.

* Yeung

Leadbeater

(2010). Adults make a difference: The protective effects of parent and teacher emotional support on emotional and behavioral problems of peer-victimized adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20353

203.

M. V.

Johnson

H. E.

Deutsch

N. L.

Varga

S. M.

(2018). “She calls me by my last name”: Exploring adolescent perceptions of positive teacher-student relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558416684958

204.

* Zanden

P. J. V. D.

Denessen

E. J.

Scholte

R. H.

(2015). The effects of general interpersonal and bullying-specific teacher behaviors on pupils’ bullying behaviors at school. School Psychology International, 36(5), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315592754

205.

Zullig

K. J.

Koopman

T. M.

Patton

J. M.

Ubbes

V. A.

(2010). School climate: Historical review, instrument development, and school assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829093442

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB