University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STUDENT WILLINGNESS TO REPORT
VIOLENCE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

by
William Bennett Lupejkis

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2010

Copyright 2010 William Bennett Lupejkis

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank many people who helped bring this
dissertation home. First and foremost, I would like to thank my chair, Dr. Helena Seli,
who not only served as my advisor, but also encouraged me at every stage of this process.
Dr. Seli exhibited a dedication over the eighteen months of this process with her ready
accessibility, timely assistance, and expert guidance. Her love for students and the value
she places on their educational experience are unmatched.
I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Melora
Sundt and Dr. Laurie Love, who provided me valuable feedback throughout the
dissertation process and gave me the support to persevere until the end. Dr. Sundt was
instrumental in illuminating in-group/out-group membership, which became a major
evaluative lens for the findings. Dr. Love found an amenable school district for my study
after I was stalled by my own. With much gratitude I would like to thank Dr. Matt
Horvath, Cheryl Daugherty, and Jamie Jimenez for welcoming me into their schools.
Additionally, the findings from this study would not have been possible without the
statistical talents of Dr. Nicholas Gorman. I would like to thank him so much for helping
to sort and analyze the data, and making it clearly understandable for me.
Finally, words cannot express the gratitude and heartfelt love that I have for my
wife, Patricia. She made sacrifices throughout this process because of her belief in me,
even in the face of my own expressed doubts. Without my wife’s encouragement and
support to complete this process, I would not have had to write these acknowledgements.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of Problem 4
Purpose of Study 4
Research Questions 4
Hypotheses 5
Implications of Study 6
Methodology 6
Assumptions 8
Limitations 8
Delimitations 9
Definition of Terms 9
Organization of Study 11
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12
Introduction 12
Theoretical Framework 14
Ecological Systems Theory 14
Bystander Behavior Framework 16
Community Violence 20
Exposure to Community Violence 22
Coping Mechanisms as Hindrances to Reporting 23
School Climate 26
Trusted Adults as School Social Capital 31
The Role of the Principal in Fostering Reporting 33
Peer Affiliation 35
Age 36
Gender 36
Ethnicity 37
In-Group/Out-Group Membership 38
Bystander Behavior 39
Psychological Processes Affecting Reporting 39
Fear of Retaliation 41
Reporter’s Relationship to the Victim and Perpetrator 42
Summary and Conclusion 44

iv
CHAPTER 3: METHODS 45
Research Questions 45
Research Design 46
Population and Sample 47
Instrumentation 49
Data Collection 52
Data Analysis 53
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 55
Introduction 55
Intercorrelations 55
Research Question 1 57
Research Question 2 59
Research Question 3 62
Research Question 4 66
Research Question 5 67
Research Question 6 68
Summary of Findings 69
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSSION 72
Summary of Findings 72
Neighborhood Violence and Willingness to Report 72
Positive School Climate and Willingness to Report 74
Relationship to Victim and Perpetrator and Willingness to Report 75
Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and School of Attendance and Willingness to Report 78
Knowledge of Available Resources and Willingness to Report 81
Fear of the Likelihood of Negative Consequences and Willingness to Report 82
Recommendations 84
Limitations of the Study 86
Implications for Future Research 87
Final Thoughts 89

REFERENCES 91
APPENDIX A: BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR SURVEY 95
APPENDIX B: INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH: 107
PARENTAL PERMISSION
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH: 111
ADULTS 18 OR OLDER
APPENDIX D: ASSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH FOR YOUTH 114
(AGES 12 – 17)

v
APPENDIX E: PARENT INFORMATION LETTER 117
APPENDIX F: RECRUITMENT SPEECH 120

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Research Questions, Independent and Dependent Variables, and
Statistical Tests 51
Table 2: Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables 56
Table 3: Summary of Simple Linear Regression of Neighborhood Danger on
Reporting Crime 58
Table 4: Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression of School Climate on
Willingness to Report School Violence 60
Table 5: Summary of Comparisons of Reporting Behavior Based on Relationship
to the Victim 63
Table 6: Summary of Comparisons of Reporting Behavior Based on Relationship
to the Perpetrator 65
Table 7: Summary of Comparisons of Reporting Behavior Based on Demographics 66
Table 8: Summary of Simple Linear Regression of Neighborhood Danger on
Reporting Crime 67
Table 9: Summary of Linear Regression of Consequences of Reporting Violence
on Likelihood of Reporting School Violence 68

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The nested circles of interaction postulated by Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Systems Theory 15
Figure 2: The four stages of bystander intervention as described by 18
Latané and Darley

viii
ABSTRACT
This study examined personal and environmental influences that previous
research suggested affect violence and violence reporting for secondary students.
Findings of this study suggested that certain factors significantly impacted a secondary
student who witnessed violence or violent acts make decisions to report. Personal
variables included demographic indicators of age, gender, ethnicity, and school of
attendance. Environmental variables included level of violence in the neighborhood of
the school, school climate, principal visibility, peer affiliation, in-group/out-group
membership, witness relationship to victim/perpetrator, and knowledge about avenues of
reporting. The study found that most variables were statistically significant predictors to
reporting behavior. Higher levels of neighborhood violence negatively predicted
reporting, whereas factors of school climate (knowledge of whom and where to report,
clarity of rules, and a supportive principal) positively predicted reporting. The quality of
the witness’s relationship to the victim/perpetrator significantly predicted reporting.
Females were more likely to report than males, and age difference between witness and
victim/perpetrator significantly predicted reporting. The findings also suggested that
students felt that some victims deserve their fate. Overall, students reported a lack of
willingness to report violence. These findings present many implications and suggest
possible recommendations for school sites such as clearer avenues in school for reporting
with designated responsible adults and training and use in classroom cooperative learning
models across the curriculum to broaden positive peer interaction.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado and Santana High
School in Santee, California changed the way policy makers perceived violence on
school campuses (Gladden, 2002). In the Santana High School shootings of 2001, as
reported by CBS news, a lone student killed two students and wounded 13 others, an
event that on the prior weekend he had forewarned his friends would happen. The
Columbine High School tragedy prompted the existence of the “zero-tolerance” policy
for weapons and weapon use on school campuses. Security measures increased to
reconfigure schools as virtual fortresses protected by metal detectors, security cameras,
required school identification cards, and on-campus, regularly assigned police, among
other measures (Shelton, Owens, & Song, 2009; Sutter, 2009; Thompkins, 2000; Watts &
Erevelles, 2004). Moreover, California created the California School Climate and Safety
Survey (CSCSS) (Furlong, Greif, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005), a 52-question
survey, designed to gather current and more comprehensive information with the purpose
of developing a positive school climate in order to avert events that occurred in schools
such as Santana High School and Columbine High School (Gladden, 2002).
Weapons and weapons violence, however, are not as prevalent in schools as the
general, low-level violence such as bullying, gender and sexual orientation harassment,
posturing, disrespect, and defiance (Watts & Erevelles, 2004; Welsh, 2000). Flannery,
Wester, and Singer (2004) found that self-reported exposure to violence in urban schools
in the course of a year showed 86% of high school students witnessed physical

2
confrontation, 75% witnessed someone else “beaten up,” and 79% witnessed someone
being threatened at school. In the same study, high school students reported significant
levels of personal victimization, defined as being slapped (32%), beaten up (8%), and
threatened (33%) (Flannery, Wester, & Singer, 2004). Schools and systems must attend
to all aspects of campus safety, but contend with more incidents of general violence than
that which makes headlines.
School children may face a range of coping difficulties not shared by other
students at the same school based upon levels of or exposure to neighborhood violence.
According to Bronfenbrenner (1975), financial circumstances may require both parents to
work, creating an empty domicile when the student returns from school. If a family is
comprised a of single parent, the need to earn a living wage for the family may require
the one parent to work multiple jobs. Both scenarios presented may create “latch key”
children (Bronfenbrenner, 1975) with limited parental supervision. Additionally,
depending on the family’s ability to afford housing, many residents may be subjected to
reside in neighborhoods experiencing higher levels of violence or lessened municipal
services. This may lead to varying forms of disenfranchisement spawning a general lack
of trust in authority figures and institutions, and, accordingly, may compel residents to
create their own coping mechanisms with violence (Bronfenbrenner, 1975; Horowitz,
1987; Ness, 2004; Watts & Erevelles, 2004). For example, people living in perceived
hostile communities often create their own “policing” methods apart from local
authorities, as in the Chicano neighborhood in the Horowitz (1987) study and the Ness
(2004) study of female teenagers of a north Philadelphia neighborhood. Also, it has been

3
suggested that parents in less safe communities may become anesthetized to or
underestimate the levels of violence faced almost daily by their children in these
neighborhoods (Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001). Hence, in neighborhoods
where there may be a tacit acceptance of or specific coping mechanism developed to
contend with local violence, there could be a gap between witnessed violence and
violence reported to local authorities and trusted adults.
In the 1970’s, after the incidents of Kitty Genovese, brutally murdered while 38
onlookers took no action, and Andrew Mormille, stabbed to death in a subway car
witnessed by 11 others, Latané and Darley (1970) studied the unresponsive bystander.
Berkowitz (2008, in press, p. 4) defines a bystander as “someone who witnesses a
problem and does not do anything about it.” In Latané and Darley’s (1970) seminal study
of bystander behavior, they identify four stages of bystander behavior, culminating with
the bystander taking action and transitioning from an unresponsive witness to a
participant. In the first two stages, 1) the event has to be noticed, and then 2) the event
has to be interpreted as a problem. The next stage, 3) is for the bystander to assume
responsibility for dealing with the problem, and in the last stage, 4) the bystander must
believe he or she has the skills necessary to act upon said problem. At what point or by
what motivating forces does a bystander transition through the four stages from an
unresponsive to reporting bystander? What supports are necessary for a student
bystander to transition through the four stages and report violence at school?

4
Statement of Problem
Student witnesses to violence face helping and hindering mechanisms to
reporting. What are those helping and hindering mechanisms that create a willingness or
unwillingness to report violence? A problem in secondary schools in relation to the
varying levels of violence is that a student bystander may be reluctant to become
involved or be accountable for the reporting of violence (Berkowitz, 2008, in press).
Additionally, if a bystander has determined to act, he or she must first recognize the
violence as a problem and believe he or she has the skills necessary to take appropriate
action (Latané & Darley, 1970). Furthermore, in order for the student bystander to report,
the student first requires assurances of personal safety needed to overcome pressures
exerted by his or her environment hindering violence reporting (Horowitz, 1987; Ness,
2004; Phillips & Cooney, 2005; Welsh, 2000).
Purpose of Study
This study assessed student attitudes, expectations, and factual knowledge toward
reporting violence, as well as factors that promoted or inhibited reporting. The findings
are intended to broaden understanding of bystander behavior and examine the relations
among varying community levels of violence, school climate, age, gender, ethnicity of
students, and the influence of these factors on student willingness to report violence.
Research Questions
In the context of understanding the conditions under which a student would or
would not report a violent act at school, the study explores the following:

5
1. Is there a difference in a student’s willingness to report violence they hear about
or witness in school based on the level of violence in the community?
2. Does student perception of school climate relate to a student’s willingness to
report violence they hear about or witness in school?
3. Is there a difference in a student’s willingness to report violence they hear about
or witness in school based on his or her relationship with the victim or the
perpetrator?
4. Do these relationships vary significantly based on age, gender, ethnicity, and
school of attendance of the bystander and/or the victim or perpetrator?
5. To what extent does student knowledge about the resources available to them
relate to their willingness to report?
6. Does a student’s perception of the likelihood of personal consequences of
reporting violent acts inhibit reporting?
Hypotheses
1. Higher levels of violence in the community will negatively correlate with
bystander reporting of violent acts in school.
2. A student’s perception of a positive school climate will correlate with an
increased willingness to report violence he/she hears about or witnesses in school.
3. There will be a difference in reporting behavior based upon the student’s
relationship to the victim and the perpetrator.
4. There will be a difference in willingness to report based upon the age, gender,
ethnicity, and school of attendance of the reporter.

6
5. There will be a difference in reporting behavior based upon a student’s knowledge
of reporting resources available to them.
6. A student’s fear of the likelihood of negative consequences for reporting will
negatively correlate with a willingness to report violent acts.
Implications of Study
Adding to the extant research on violence and reporting behaviors can assist
schools increase reporting behaviors, and through that engender a safer learning
environment for students. If school leaders develop an understanding of the student’s
perspective of the helping and hindering mechanisms that influence the willingness to
report violent acts at school, substantive organizational changes can be addressed to
increase helping structures and decrease hindering ones. Additionally, as the school
exhibits a consistent willingness to act positively toward reports of violence, ensure
protection for the reporter, and take steps to create a safer campus, incidents of violence,
such as occurred at Columbine and Santana High Schools, may occur far less frequently
on campus.
Methodology
The study was quantitative in research design. As self-reported behavior of
witnessing violence and involvement in reporting may be sensitively charged, a
quantitative design protecting respondent anonymity was utilized. Students were
surveyed from two high schools in a small, incorporated city in Southern California.
Each school’s enrollment had a limited zip code range and could be described as
neighborhood schools. The neighborhood in which each school situated had recorded

7
crime statistics and these along with small demographic and socioeconomic indicator
variations represented the only measurable differences in the two schools. Additionally,
the selected schools operated under a similar governance model and followed similar
structures for a positive school climate.
Based on the number of independent and dependent variables of the study, a
minimum sample of 300 completed surveys was required to complete the study.
However, all 360 completed surveys from the two schools were used in the analyses. The
selected students represented a convenience sample. A survey of 52 response items
developed by the researcher was administered in paper and pencil format. The survey
was field tested at an alternate school site in the incorporated city limits with thirty 18
year-old students, as they were able to give their consent to participate without the
necessity of parental informed consent. The responses of the pilot student cohort were
used to gauge internal reliability and validity, and allowed for any adjustments in the
survey to be made prior to full implementation.
The data was collected and grouped according to related variables. The data was
analyzed using frequencies of response, Chi-square, t-test, correlation coefficient, and
linear regression in order to examine the relationship of student willingness to report
violence at school and school climate, the effect levels of neighborhood violence have on
reporting behaviors, the reporter’s relationship to victim and perpetrator, the reporter’s
knowledge about how and to whom to report, and demographic characteristics of age,
gender and ethnicity.

8
Assumptions
The assumptions made in this study were that the surveyed students shared
demographic characteristics. The schools shared common structures supporting a
positive school climate. Additionally, it was assumed that the respondents understood the
questionnaire and that all students were able to make cogent choices when presented with
a continuous response Likert-type scale. The researcher assumed that the questions
addressing a) student willingness to report and knowledge of how and to whom to report,
b) questions regarding school climate, c) student perception of neighborhood danger, and
d) other variables, validly and reliably measured these variables.
Limitations
The design of the study presented a range of limitations. The major limitation to
this study was that it was correlational; therefore, no causal relationships could be
determined, as only experimental studies can assess causation. The researcher could only
determine that the independent and dependent variables were related, but could not
conclude that the dependent variables were a result of the independent variables. Other
limitations included consistency, social desirability, and self-selection biases.
Consistency bias occurs when participants’ words do not match their actions when
confronted with an actual violent act or violence. Social desirability bias occurs when
participants report answers they believe are acceptable or desired by the researcher. The
veracity of the response, the correct interpretation of the question, or the independent
completion of the survey by the respondent could not be ensured by the researcher.

9
The study was conducted utilizing a convenience sampling technique and might
not be generalizable to other urban schools. Self-selection bias occurs when students
voluntarily assign themselves to a group. Moreover, students active in violent and deviant
behavior may be reluctant to answer a questionnaire about violent and deviant behavior,
even with the guarantee of anonymity. The reliability of the instrument used limited the
validity of the study. The study was also limited by the return rate for the population of
each high school, and might not be reflective of the high school. Additionally, the
selection of the school was limited by availability and permission given by the local
education association (LEA).
Delimitations
The study was confined to students of two high schools approximately 3.3 miles
apart. The students had minor demographic and socioeconomic differences, but based on
extractable crime data, lived in neighborhoods that contrasted in the level of recorded
violent crime. Also, the selected schools shared a traditional governance model and
similar structures for a positive school climate. The understandings gained from this
study will be applicable to the schools surveyed.
Definition of Terms
Bystander: “A bystander is someone who witnesses a problem and does not do anything
about it” (Berkowitz, 2008, in press, p. 4).
Bystander Behavior: Four stages of involvement where a bystander notices the event,
interprets there is a problem, feels responsible for taking action, and possess the skills to
act (Latané & Darley, 1970).

10
Ecological Systems Theory: Bronfenbrenner (1979) hypothesizes that the developing
person is an active participant and is actively affected by the settings in which the person
situates. The smaller setting is nested inside the next larger setting and so forth. In
ascending order, the settings are the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem. For the purpose of this study, the relation of the person in the microsystem
(peer group dynamic), the mesosystem (school climate), and the exosystem (community)
were examined.
Peer affiliation: a group of friends who have joined together through mutual attributes
and shared interests, deemed negative or positive, to obtain social status.
School climate: an amalgam of school characteristics and perceptions of characteristics
that promotes safety, clarity of rules and purpose, and respect for all (Gladden, 2002;
Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005; Welsh, 2000).
Social categorization theory: the self-selected grouping of individuals based on social
characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or some other common
characteristic (Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002).
Trusted adult: an adult model in a child’s sphere of interaction with whom the child may
confide, share information, or receive guidance. In a school setting a trusted adult may
be a teacher, counselor, coach, administrator, or any staff member who has developed a
positive relationship with the child (Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997).

11
Organization of Study
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction to the problem, the statement of
the problem, the purpose of the study, the implication of the study, the research questions
and generated hypotheses, the methodology the study will employ, the limitations and
delimitations of the study, and the operational definitions.
Chapter 2 of the study is a review of literature pertinent to the study and variables
to be examined. It is framed by ecological systems and bystander behavior theories and
follows sections related to community violence, school climate, and peer affiliation.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology to be used in the study, including research
design, population and sampling procedures, and instrumentation.
Chapter 4 reports the findings of the obtained data with initial analyses of the
results.
Chapter 5 presents conclusions drawn from the findings and suggests
recommendations for further study and organizational changes.

12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
A neighborhood school may face problems peculiar to the neighborhood in which
it situates. As the level of recorded violent crime varies, so vary the ways residents cope
with the levels of violence. Some residents perceive themselves to be disenfranchised
based upon police response and interaction, which may engender a lack of trust in
authority figures. Consequently, residents facing these problems may create their own
coping mechanisms with which they process and subsequently manage violence
(Bronfenbrenner, 1975; Ness, 2004; Watts & Erevelles, 2004). For example, children
may underreport violence to shield their parents from emotional distress, or the parents
may become anesthetized to or underestimate the levels of violence faced almost daily by
their children in these neighborhoods (Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001).
Safe means for students reporting deviant behaviors that may generate violence
must be provided wherein the student is safeguarded from peer and community pressure
or fear of retaliation for accurate violence reporting (Berkowitz, 2008, in press; Brank,
Woolard, Brown, Fondacaro, Luescher, Chinn, & Miller, 2007; Thompkins, 2000).
Many students may have to overcome a belief system that tolerates or accepts negative
behaviors and an attitude that violence in the community and school is commonplace
and/or a situation one handles on one’s own (Jipguep & Sanders-Phillips, 2003; Ness,
2004; Thompkins, 2000; Watts & Erevelles, 2004).
The problem in secondary schools today in relation to the ongoing, varying levels
of violence is student reluctance to report, get involved, be accountable, or understand

13
that a world of violence is the deviate, not the norm (Jipguep & Sanders-Phillips, 2003;
Ness, 2004; Thompkins, 2000; Watts & Erevelles, 2004). School administrators lack the
means to control the levels of violence in the school neighborhood, but have taken steps
to create safer campuses, such as increased security and video monitoring, utilization of
detention, suspension, and expulsion, and the implementation of curriculum domains that
focus on behavioral skill building and conflict resolution (Phillips & Cooney, 2005;
Watts & Erevelles, 2005). Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) frames this interdependence
through his ecological systems theory, examining how the child is affected by the
interaction of peer group dynamics, the school climate, and the neighborhood, and
addressing each as an embedded circle of the next, respectively. Additionally, the
apparent reluctance to report may exemplify the theory of the unresponsive bystander as
researched in the 1970’s by Latané and Darley (1970). Can students identify the problem
and do they have the skills necessary to report? If they have the skills to report violence,
can students identify trusted adults with whom to share confidential and sensitive
information?
The review of literature will proceed as follows: The first section will ground the
dissertation in the ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and the bystander
behavior framework of Latané and Darley (1970). These two perspectives will create the
framework of the reviewed literature and studies. The second, third, and fourth sections
follow Bronfenbrenner’s nested circles, examine studies of the community, school, and
group (peer) dynamics, and discuss the contribution of each to reporting behavior. The
final section will focus on gaps presented by the reviewed literature.

14
Theoretical Framework
Ecological Systems Theory
As early as 1975, Urie Bronfenbrenner, a behavioral psychologist, outlined his
ecological systems theory in a public reading of his treatise Reality and Research in the
Ecology of Human Development at the Symposium on the Ecology of Child
Development. In his presentation Bronfenbrenner documents the changing family
dynamic in the United States over a twenty-five year period. His analysis focused
attention on the environmental aspects that affect a family’s child-rearing ability. The
crux of his argument is that environmental factors have as much to do with behavior as
the self-determined behavior of the individual. The individual, or organism, in constant
interplay with his or her environment, makes behavioral adjustments depending on the
immediate and extended circumstances.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) contends there is
interdependence between a person, the immediate environment, and the next larger
environment such as the student’s peer group, the school, and community. The three
environmental systems are nested in the larger sociopolitical system, such as the city, its
procedural and jurisdictional policies, and authorities as a whole. He defines the ecology
of human development as “the progressive, mutual accommodation between an active,
growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the
developing person lives” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21). He maintains these smaller
settings and the larger setting of which the smaller one is part affect this process. He
views these systems as concentric circles (see Figure 1), one within another, analogous to

15
Russian nesting dolls. He terms these systems the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
and macrosystem. For the purposes of the dissertation, the microsystem, or group
dynamic of the student, the mesosystem, or school climate, and the exosystem, or the
community, encompassed the focus of the study. This dissertation studied student
perceptions of the problems, pressures, and supports they faced from peers, the school
climate and trusted adults, and violence within their
communities.

Figure 1: The nested circles of interaction postulated by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological
Systems Theory
Bronfenbrenner asserts that as a person moves from one system to another, the
role the person plays within that system also changes. For example, a student at school is
part of a peer group, but when in a classroom, the environment of the classroom
organization affects change in the student’s behavior. When the student is in the

16
community, the community dynamic changes the role and behavior of the student. When
at home, the family unit has the most immediate affect on the behavior of the student.
Bronfenbrenner theorizes that the individual is an active participant in the
immediate group, not a passive receiver of directives and influences. He contends that
behavior is fluid; it changes as the motivators change. Furthermore, he asserts that
behavior and change come to pass over an extended period of time, not as a momentary
role shift, but as a prolonged interaction between person, familiar adult, and environment.
This dissertation examines reporting behaviors as influenced by the immediate group and
larger concentric groups in which the student participated. The nested concentric circles
of environmental influence were students with peers, students in the school climate with
trusted adults, and students within the community.
Bystander Behavior Framework
In 1964, a women was brutally raped and murdered on her street as 38 onlookers,
safe behind windows and curtains, isolated but aware of each other, looked on and did
not offer direct assistance nor call for police aid. Catherine “Kitty” Genovese died, and
the experts in psychology and sociology, newspaper and media pundits, and clerics and
city officials were at a loss to explain, not Miss Genovese’s murder, but the inaction of
the witnesses (Latané & Darley, 1970).
What factors influence a person’s decision to help or to remain an outsider? What
motivates the individual to undertake the decision-making process from recognition of an
emergency situation to involvement, the recognition of violence to reporting? These

17
interrelated, underlying questions spurred Latané and Darley’s (1970) research of
bystander behavior, a major framework of this dissertation.
The Latané and Darley (1970) research responded to the generally accepted
explanations of the Genovese murder that people had become apathetic, immune to
violence, or protective of their insular surroundings. Latané and Darley believed these
explanations were facile and failed to capture the decision-making processes of the
witnesses. They disagreed with theorists who explained human behavior as the following
of acceptable societal norms and acting accordingly. Conversely, they suggested that
norms may be contradictory, self-serving, and can actually deter us from involvement if
interpreted differently. For example, certain norms state that we should not ask for help,
nor should we offer if the assistance entails too great a personal price.
Arguing against the then existing perception of human behavior as influenced by
social norms, Latané and Darley (1970) theorized that a decision cycle occurs in the mind
of the witness to violence. The decision cycle, with checks at each stage, repositions the
witness from unresponsive bystander to involved reporter. They suggest bystander
conclusions and interpretations of the recognition of the emergency situation and the
decision to take action affect helping behavior. They also suggest that failure of
bystanders to intervene reflect ways individuals interpret situations and the attendant
costs and rewards associated with action.
Latané and Darley (1970) created a model for the intervention process. The
model follows four stages (see Figure 2). The bystander must first notice that something
is happening. The event must be of a magnitude to interrupt the bystander’s private

18
thoughts and make him take notice. In an urban environment or a busy, noisy schoolyard,
the ability to differentiate normal activity from emergency situations is challenging. The
events disrupting the normal schoolyard climate must be severe enough and the student
bystander must be attuned enough to take notice of an emergency situation.
Once the bystander notices something and is aware of the event, he or she must
interpret the event as an emergency. Can the witnessed event be explained in any other
way than that of an emergency situation? If the bystander can explain it in more normal
terms, the interpretation stops the intervention process at this stage. If others witnessing
the same event interpret it as non-threatening and take no steps to intervene, then other
witnesses will perceive it similarly and act accordingly.

Figure 2: The four stages of bystander intervention as described by Latané and Darley
If the bystander concludes that something is wrong, the next stage is to establish a
personal responsibility to act. He or she may conclude that help is imminent or someone
else will assume the responsibility to act. According the Latané and Darley (1970) “even

19
in a true emergency, it is not clear that everybody present should immediately intrude
himself into the situation” (p. 32). Individuals depend on the reactions of others to inform
what they see and what message to take from it.
The bystander’s relationship to the victim is another factor determining
responsibility to act and is important in the decision-making process to intervene. If the
victim is someone who may be perceived as causing the harm and is therefore deserving
of his or her fate, then the bystander feels less inclined to intervene. If the bystander is
familiar with the victim, then the bystander is more likely to intervene than he or she
would on behalf of a stranger.
Finally, in the fourth stage, the bystander considers what form of assistance to
give. Should the bystander offer direct help to the victim or call a doctor or the police?
Once that decision is made, based upon the severity of the emergency and the perceived
ability of the bystander, he or she must decide how to implement action. Latané and
Darley (1970) suggest that an alternative to personally intervening is a “detour
intervention” (p. 33). In the detour intervention, the bystander alerts the local authority,
or in the school setting, a school adult staff member. Here, he or she reports the
emergency rather than attempting to address it directly. However, Latané and Darley
offer that the circuitous path of detour intervention might not be evident to the bystander
impacted with the stress of an emergency situation.
When the bystander has weighed all options, processed all information,
determined the responsibility to act, and decided on a course of action, the last phase of
the intervention process model is implementation. Even in this final stage, the complexity

20
of the event may continue to confound the bystander. In 1964, the 38 adults witnessing
Kitty Genovese’s murder did not report. In 2001, several students at Santana High
School aware of a peer’s decision to shoot others at school could not report. Adults could
not process the violence they witnessed and make the decision to intervene. How then
does a student faced with community, school, and peer pressure acquire the skills
necessary to report violence?
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) hypothesizes interdependence
among the spheres the student must navigate in order to arrive at responsible reporting
behavior. According to Latané and Darley (1970), “The socially responsible act is one
end point to a series of decisions. Only by making the appropriate decision at each of
these steps will the bystander intervene” (p. 32). Positive or negative affiliation with the
student’s peer group, school culture and/or neighborhood may affect reporting behavior.
Can violent elements in the community affect the perception of violence and the
emotional and mental health of those routinely exposed to violence? The following
section examines exposure to community violence, coping mechanisms, and their effect
on reporting behavior.
Community Violence
The level of violence in the community in which school children reside affects
student behavior and emotional health. As theorized by Bronfenbrenner (1979), the
ecology of the community, defined as the exosystem, impacts the perceptions and
behaviors of its inhabitants. Constructs proposed by Coleman (1988) in his social capital
theory support that certain factors within family (and community) affect children’s

21
relations to others in the community and school domains. Additionally, Coleman argues
that members of middle-class neighborhoods are more likely to exhibit positive coping
characteristics than members of low socioeconomic and deprived communities where
violence presents a major dilemma for school children (Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, &
Ramirez, 2001; Horowitz, 1987; Ness, 2004; Rasmussen, Aber, & Bhana, 2004;
Rosenthal & Wilson, 2008). According to the research, exposure to community violence
may produce detrimental effects on behavioral development of children and adolescents
(Ceballo et al., 2001; Jipguep & Sanders, 2003). Significant from a review of literature
on the relationship of childhood and community violence, Errante (1997) found three
emergent themes relating to the influence of community violence on children: the effect
of community violence on moral and intellectual development, the nature of trauma and
what children find traumatic, and the relations linking trauma, coping mechanisms, and
child development. Margolin, Vickerman, Ramos, Serrano, Gordis, Iturralde, Oliver, and
Spies (2009) examined the relationship of stability, co-occurrence of mitigating factors,
and context of violent acts and found that the longer children are exposed to violence, the
more impact violence has as a disruptive force on the children’s lives. Additionally, as
the violence in a neighborhood is both experienced and interpreted, children may
experience violence at higher levels than their parents know, or parents may
underestimate the violence witnessed or perpetrated by their children (Ceballo, Dahl,
Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001). This concept will be elaborated on in the next section.

22
Exposure to Community Violence
In a study conducted by Ceballo et al. (2001), matched pairs of 104 mothers and
their 4
th
and 5
th
grade children were interviewed in two multiethnic elementary schools in
Detroit regarding children’s personal victimization and witnessing violence. The study
results indicated that mothers underestimated by half the level of violence and
victimization to which their children had been subjected. For example, 32% of children
reported they witnessed someone stabbed with a knife, while only 6% of the mothers
reported awareness of the same event. Ceballo et al. offer several interpretations of the
discrepancy. They suggest that children may keep information of violence away from
parents to retain a level of freedom in their daily activities. Children may also
underreport to parents because the violence is perceived as commonplace, and they are
desensitized to certain levels of violence. Lastly, Ceballo et al. propose that children
withhold reporting to protect their parents from emotional trauma. Students who withhold
reporting from parents may also have a higher threshold for violence and may not
recognize violence in the community (and the schoolyard) at levels considered actionable
by local authorities in the community and trusted adults in the school.
Researchers have also found that neighborhoods have “rules” for participation in
violent acts and acceptance of everyday violence. In her phenomenological study of 15
girls in a North Philadelphia neighborhood, Ness (2004) revealed that patterns of
violence followed an intergenerational group composed of the teen girls, their mothers,
grandmothers, and aunts. The study further revealed the families of this intergenerational
group participated in a kind of protection circle, not unlike the operation of gangs within

23
neighborhoods. In examining the pathology of girls fighting, Ness discovered that a
social support network included mothers and aunts, and that the girls themselves
participated in fighting as protection as well as an exhibition of a power hierarchy. Ness
further observed that implicit and accepted rules were associated with fighting, from the
reasons for the fight (e.g., boyfriend disputes) to the location of the confrontation. For
example, the oppositional combatant cannot bring the fight to the doorstep of the
opponent. Violence against a mutual foe becomes a family issue when the fight is
brought to the residence. If accepted community protection and a reporting circle exist
apart from local authority, would students be willing to report violence in the schoolyard
to a trusted school adult staff member, the local authority of the school?
Community dynamics and factors in the immediate and extended families within
the community present barriers to reporting violence. The next section addresses
research about coping mechanisms developed in the community exosystem that permit
and accept violence as normative behavior.
Coping Mechanisms as Hindrances to Reporting
Horowitz (1987), in a phenomenological study, observed a community dynamic
tolerant of gang violence. Horowitz reasons that because the gangs are intergenerational,
reporting gang members and the violence perpetrated by them is a breech of trust and a
dishonor to the family. Horowitz’s study further suggests if the community would react to
gangs as deviant, such action would pose serious dilemmas for members of individual
families, introduce a need for local authority, and besmirch family honor. Horowitz’s
study of a Chicago Chicano community and the 32
nd
Street gang offers insight into a

24
distinct coping mechanism of the acceptance of violence, a balance between violence and
safety, and a family/neighborhood social network that coexists with gangs. Students from
communities sharing the characteristics with the community of the Horowitz study may
not be as willing to come forward and report witnessed violence to local authorities and
school adult staff members.
How children in communities with any level of exposure to violence develop
coping mechanisms to shield themselves from emotional distress is impacted by the
emotional social supports they receive from significant others in the community and their
own sense of personal control (Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001; Errante, 1997;
Rasmussen, Aber, & Bhana, 2004; Rosenthal & Wilson, 2008). Hypothesizing that the
presence of emotional support and the feeling of personal control create a protective
buffer from psychological distress brought on by exposure to community violence,
Rosenthal et al. (2008) conducted a quantitative study of 947 older adolescents in the
New York City boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. The level of emotional support had a
statistically significant negative correlation with exposure to community violence (r = -
.11) and psychological distress (r = -.35). In other words, a sense of personal control had
no impact on exposure to violence, perhaps from the random nature of violent acts, but
did negatively correlate with psychological distress (r = -.48). Although the findings are
important, the authors conclude that there may be other coping factors that serve as
protective functions against exposure to community violence and the attendant emotional
distress.

25
Coping strategies can be negative or positive as Rasmussen, Aber, and Bhana
(2004) assert in their study of adolescents coping with neighborhood violence. Data were
taken from an earlier administered survey of Catholic high school students in the Chicago
area. The 140 participants ranged in age from 16 to 19, with a mean age of 16.91. They
were predominantly Latino students (60%), 58% of which were male. Similarly to
Rosenthal et al., Rasmussen et al. hypothesize that social supports and problem-solving
strategies would negatively correlate with exposure to violence. They also hypothesize
that gender would impact the type of coping mechanisms used, with girls favoring social
support and boys utilizing confrontative strategies. The problem solving strategies tested
were confrontative coping, seeking social support, positive reappraisal, planful problem
solving, and escape avoidance. The researchers interpret from the data that effective
coping mechanisms were adopted and used by the subject regardless of the subject’s
perceptions of safety and level of exposure to violence. These findings remained the
same regardless of the level of violence in a neighborhood, except in high crime or “high
murder rate neighborhoods” (p. 66). As the level of violence increased to include severe
danger, all coping strategies positively associated with perceived safety. The findings do
support the hypothesis that gender affects coping strategy, with more boys (15 of 19) than
girls choosing a confrontative style. Although ethnicity as an independent variable was
not considered in the original hypothesis, the collected data show that Latinos (14 of 19)
chose confrontative coping over other forms of coping. Their interpretation of the data
can be considered from the findings of Horowitz (1987) and her study of the Chicano

26
neighborhood where family polices itself and family honor supersedes reporting to local
authorities.
Can neighborhood violence be alleviated by a positive school climate? If students
enter secondary school with well-established coping mechanisms that do not include
reporting violence to trusted adults, school adult staff members, or local authorities, how
do schools overcome this self-imposed and practiced barrier to reporting? The next
section focuses on literature pertaining to school climate and trusted adults as mediators
of violence, violent behavior, and a support for reporting behavior.
School Climate
School climate is an amalgam of school characteristics and perceptions of
characteristics that promote safety, clarity of rules and purpose, and respect for all
(Gladden, 2002; Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005; Welsh, 2000).
According to Errante (1997), order and structure promote prosocial behaviors among
students in their interactions with peers, and these positive behaviors are “supported by
school safety, discipline, and a climate of order and cooperation” (Errante, p. 386).
Akiba, LeTendre, Baker, and Goesling (2002) in their quantitative study of 7
th
and 8
th

grade Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) results for 1994, conclude
that school climate and the respect for the child through the delivery of a quality
education program mitigates violent behavior within a school. Similarly, students who
value academics exhibit more positive behaviors (Felson, Liska, South, & McNulty,
1994).

27
Welsh (2000), in his analysis of survey data from the Philadelphia school system,
found that adult respect for students, school planning and action, and clarity of rules
positively affect school safety. A positive school climate helps students avoid perceived
violent or dangerous situations, victimization, threats to safety, offending behaviors, and
misconduct. Additionally, respect for students, planning and action, fairness of rules, and
clarity of rules significantly predict levels of victimization. According to Welsh (2000),
avoidance of violence or violent behavior was significantly predicted by respect for
students, student influence, and clarity of rules, with clarity of rules being the strongest
predictor. Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, and Jimenez (2005), using the California
School Climate and Safety Survey (CSCSS), a 52-item student questionnaire of climate
and safety factors within California schools, focused on variables of teacher respect,
fairness and niceness, and knowledge and fairness of school rules to rate school climate.
Using a varimax with Kaiser normalization rotation, teacher respect (.787) and teacher
fairness (.782) had the highest factor results. Interestingly, when the variable “it pays to
follow the rules at school” (Furlong et al., 2005, p. 143) received factor analysis, the
factor predicted less than 50% of the school climate. In other words, according to Furlong
et al., schools whose students follow clear rules and understand consequences for
infractions predict higher levels of school safety. Reports of gangs on campus (.800),
gang activity (.748), community violence (.726), crime and violence at school (.672), and
a general sense of safety (.672) factored positively in students’ perceived safety at school.
Interestingly, respect and rules accounted for 27.86% of the variance in a perceived
positive school climate, while gangs, school and community violence, and general safety

28
only predicted 11.27% of variance. One can infer from these findings that a positive
school climate can mitigate safety fears. Additionally, both the Furlong et al. (2005) and
Welsh (2000) studies concur that respect for students and clarity of rules positively
predict climate. This study sought to understand the relationship of a perceived positive
school climate and student reporting behavior.
These attributes may be seen as positive and promoting prosocial behaviors such
as reporting violent behavior, cooperating with adults, and actively contributing to school
safety; others perceive “normalizing” of school culture and school behavior not only as a
means of creating an accepted school culture but also inadvertently creating a class of
outsiders. Watts and Erevelles (2004) view the normalcy of school rules, rituals, and
expected behaviors as both restrictive and ostracizing, marginalizing the minority
outsider (low-income, male African-American and Latino students), one who does not fit
the academic and behavior expectations of the school. Examining the extant literature
from the perspective of Critical Race Theory and Disability Studies, Watts and Erevelles
argue in their meta-analysis of literature pertaining to school culture and violence that
schools create a deficit model. The deficit model exercises social control through
discipline practices that appeal to the mainstream public’s idea of expected normative
behavior. They conclude that attributing incidents of school violence to systemic causes
inherent in a school culture promote acceptable behavior and, through that promotion,
create an oppressive climate for those who do not accept or fit the definition of school
behavioral norms. Although Errante (1997) refers positively to order and structure in

29
schools, she points out that harsh disciplinary practices are minimally effective with
children whose first course of action is biased toward force and violence.
Are clear rules and consequences practiced in a school, as suggested by Furlong et
al. (2005), enough to include all students in a positive, supportive climate for reporting?
Does the student perceived as a community outsider continue to remain an outsider at
school? Will the coping mechanism of meeting violence with violence demonstrate how
some students accept the idea that other students deserve what they get, and that it is not
the student’s responsibility to report violence?
The desire for a school climate that promotes safety may produce unintended
consequences. In order to maintain order and safety for students and adult personnel at
school and to counter acts of violence, schools and school districts have increased
surveillance and security personnel at schools. Shelton, Owens, and Song (2009)
examine public school safety measures and find that urban schools outpace suburban and
rural schools in attempts to create a safe environment. Urban schools report more fenced
campuses (30%) compared with suburban (15%) and rural (12%) schools. Metal
detectors are used at 16% of urban schools compared with less than 3% use for suburban
and rural schools. Sixty percent of urban schools employ security guards compared to
37% of suburban and 23% of rural schools, and 77% of urban schools report sign-in
policies compared to 69% of suburban and 54% of rural schools. Also, a higher
percentage of urban schools (5%) require uniforms compared to rural (4%) and suburban
(1%) schools. According to the literature, these overt indicators of heightened security
may invoke feelings of insecurity among staff and students (Thompkins, 2000). A

30
review of data identifying types of crimes, victimization of students by age and gender,
gang presence at school, school gangs by family income, school gangs by residence area,
and violence by gangs concludes that heightened, visible security measures engender a
climate of fear. In this climate, students and teachers act as if violence surrounds them
and subsequently avoid perceived dangerous situations, including, for teachers, the
disciplining of students who fit a gang profile (Thompkins, 2000).
Even though Watts and Erevelles (2004) portray a bleak outcome for the outsider
at a school stressing a climate of acceptable behavior, they present hope that alternative
modes can be employed that focus on social transformation and social justice for students
and their communities. This idea is echoed in other research. Errante (1997) states
“schools can address the need for affiliation by providing a caring and supportive social
and academic environment that promotes personal dignity and avoids a sense of shame”
(p. 386).
Research on school climate shows that a positive school climate with respect for
students, clarity and fairness of rules (Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005;
Gladden, 2002; Welsh, 2000), an academically rich program (Akiba, LeTendre, Baker, &
Goesling 2002), augmented by structure and order support prosocial behaviors and
mitigate safety fears (Errante, 1997). Watts and Erevelles (2004) suggest, however, that
a school climate focused on safety and prosocial behaviors can create outsiders.
Thompkins (2000) suggests that a school climate focused on safety can create a climate
of fear where heightened measures of security such as increased security personnel and
surveillance cameras may intensify insecurity in students and teachers and compel them

31
to navigate the school day in fear. This study did not attempt to measure how student
willingness to report violence was affected by the presence of security devices, cameras,
and metal detectors. However, do these security measures offer, as Latané and Darley
(1970) suggest, a diffusion of responsibility? Do students feel that these security
measures buffer them from violence and make direct reporting unnecessary? Of interest
in a future study would be the effect these security measures have on student reporting.
How much influence does school climate have on reporting behavior? How does
the school climate include all students? What aspects of school climate and trusted adults
address the needs of all students, support a safe, prosocial environment, and influence
reporting behavior? The next section will focus on literature pertaining to trusted adults, a
means of assembling a supportive social and academic environment, and creating a
conduit for student reporting.
Trusted Adults as School Social Capital
Stanton-Salazar (2001) found ties to school for working-class parents of most
adolescents to be fragile, that parents are unable to cross the boundaries of school, and
family and school-based networks are tenuously linked. In the absence of negotiable
neighborhood and family social capital, schools need to address and negotiate gaps
created by mainstream society (Dika & Singh, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Stanton-
Salazar, 2001). Stanton-Salazar (1997) refers to “institutional agents” (p. 14), the trusted
adults at a school, as supplying various funds of knowledge, bridging, advocacy, role
modeling, and emotional and moral support. Wright and Fitzpatrick (2006) view school
for some students as a “significant hurdle and often an unpleasant challenge” (p. 1437) as

32
a result of difficult academic requirements and expected behavioral norms. Failure to
meet either academic or behavioral standards may lead to frustration, loss of confidence,
detachment from school, and violent behaviors (Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006). If the
student connects with school and achieves academic and social success, the school
human and material resources can open avenues for normative group affiliation and
positive group identification (Gladden, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wright &
Fitzpatrick, 2006).
The presence of trusted adults in schools is a key underpinning of Stanton-
Salazar’s (1997) work on social capital for minority students. Social capital is school-site
specific and needs to be explicitly utilized to counter school violence (Gladden, 2002;
Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006). In their study of school social capital, Wright and
Fitzpatrick (2206) hypothesize that students who report elevated feelings of school
affiliation will report less incidents of engagement in violent behavior. The data obtained
through pencil and paper questionnaires and in-home interviews of 4,834 seventh through
twelfth grade students show that level of school affiliation (b = -.38, p < .01) negatively
predicts violent behavior.
Stanton-Salazar (2001) employed his social capital framework for minority
students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) in an ethnographic study of students and trusted adults
at Auxilio High School in San Diego. From the perspective that a teacher’s social
position may be characterized by multiple roles, and that these roles become conflicted
when faced with the impasse between professional responsibilities and moral imperatives
for student welfare, Stanton-Salazar interviewed students to examine levels and types of

33
school affiliation specific to the student’s relationship with trusted adults. Although
Stanton-Salazar’s findings show a positive correlation between lessened violent behavior
and non-athletic school organizations, only 25.5% of the Latino population at Auxilio
High School participated in school organizations. Stanton-Salazar suggests that
participation in organizations that may generate close relationships between students,
teachers, and other significant school adults develop outside the routine of school by
“near-random, accidental occurrences” (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, p. 175). He suggests that
caring, supportive relationships with trusted adults developed through regular school
activities may safeguard the low-status student from isolating effects of class, racial, and
gender subjugation. Relationships with trusted adults may mitigate feelings of
ostracization of the class, racial, and/or gender marginalized student and positively
correlate to reporting behavior.
Is the principal as leader and framer of the school climate important? Do students
need to trust their principal? Does trust generate higher expectations for reporting? The
next section will review literature about the principal’s role in the safe school.
The Role of the Principal in Fostering Reporting Behavior
Much research regarding the principal’s role in school focuses on instructional
leadership. A component addressed in leadership is visibility. According to Blasé and
Blasé (2004) in the Handbook of Instructional Leadership, the principal should be highly
visible, and Fiore (2006) in School-Community Relations contends that visibility is key.
This is echoed in other literature on the subject of effective principals and other school
leaders (Alvy & Robbins, 1998; Haberman, 1999; Ramsey, 2006).

34
Effective leadership also involves consistency, honesty, and fairness (Alvy &
Robbins, 1998; Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Ramsey, 2006; Scarnati, 1994). According to
Scarnati (1994) in a study of effective leadership practices, the principal must practice
honesty and integrity, demonstrate care and understanding, and eliminate fear. Blasé and
Blasé (2004) suggest an open door policy and frequent classroom visits as means to
demonstrate caring and understanding. It is in these classroom visits that students may
see a positive modeling of trusting behavior with the teacher (and students), thus
diminishing fear and apprehension that may accompany the principal’s classroom visits.
How do visibility, honesty, integrity, caring, and eliminating fear translate into
student access to trusted adults at school, particularly a trusted principal, and possibly
translate into student reporting behavior? For the purposes of this study, the principal
qualities are addressed through three questions: “is the principal there for students”
(visibility); “does the principal do the right thing” (honesty, integrity, eliminating fear);
and “does the principal respect the students” (caring)? A breadth of research has been
done regarding trusted adults (Gladden, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Wright &
Fitzpatrick, 2006) and student sense of safety and violence reporting (Brank, Woolard,
Brown, Fondacaro, Luescher, Chinn, & Miller, 2007; Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, &
Jimenez, 2005). Less research focuses specifically on the principal’s influence in
reducing violence and eliminating fear. However, teacher impact on reducing violence
and eliminating fear (Brank, et al., 2007; Furlong et al., 2005; Welsh, 2002) may be
extrapolated to the principal, provided the principal is routinely visible to the students.
Student observation of a positive model of trusting relationships among adults in the

35
schoolyard and classroom through frequent classroom visits and daily interaction may
develop expectations of similar levels of trust. However, the principal must take care to
maintain a delicate balance between student trust and the discipline needs of the campus
(Alvy & Robbins, 2002).
Will a visible principal perceived as consistent, fair, and caring influence the
students’ reporting behavior? Can a principal who is accessible to students, does the
right thing, and exhibits respect for the students overcome group dynamics affecting
reporting behavior? The next section will review literature pertaining to group dynamics,
bystander behavior, and violence reporting. As the previous sections develop themes
around school climate and community violence, this section frames the microsystem
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) of student peer associations, attitudes towards violence, and
violence reporting.
Peer Affiliation
The formation of peer groups and attributes toward affiliation are addressed in
literature pertaining to perpetration and mitigation of student violence and frame the
following section on bystander reporting. The reviewed literature examines variables of
age (Brank, Woolard, Brown, Fondacaro, Luescher, Chinn, & Miller 2007; Furlong,
Grief, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005; Spano, Vazsonyi, & Bolland, 2008, in press),
gender (Furlong et al., 2005; Ness, 2004), and ethnicity (Watts & Erevelles, 2004) as
factors that predict adolescent peer affiliation and may affect reporting behavior. The
reviewed literature also suggests social-categorization theory (Levine, Cassidy, Brazier,

36
& Reicher, 2002) affects peer affiliation dependent on a student’s perception of ”in-
group” or “out-group” membership.
Age
Brank, Woolard, Brown, Fondacaro, Luescher, Chinn, and Miller (2007) examine
weapons reporting by middle-school youth. In a quantitative study of middle-school
students in Florida, Connecticut, California, Texas, and New Jersey, the findings indicate
that age is a predictive variable for reporting, with 6
th
graders significantly more willing
to report than 8
th
graders. In other words, as age increased, willingness to report
decreased. Indeed, according to Furlong et al. (2005), as grade level (and age) increased,
the perception of safety among males and females decreased, as inversely related to the
scale scores on the California School Climate and Safety Survey (CSCSS). The
researchers conclude that as students mature from childhood to early adolescence, they
identify less with school and caring adults than with friends. Spano, Vazsonyi, and
Bolland (2008, in press) support the Brank et al. findings of age affecting the child’s
relationship to a significant adult. According to Spano et al., the transition to adolescence
broadens the child’s social network, a social network that relies on connections with
friends and a moderating of family ties.
Gender
Furlong, Grief, Bates, Whipple, and Jimenez (2005) examine the variable of
gender in using or reporting violence, school safety, and victimization. Their data
obtained from the CSCSS show that males reported significantly higher scores on the
Physical-Verbal Harassment and Weapons & Physical Attacks scales, meaning that male

37
students experienced or had been subjected to physical and/or verbal attacks and
subjected to physical attacks and threats from weapons at school, respectively. Females
reported significantly higher Sexual Harassment scores, meaning that female students
experienced sexual harassment. Furlong et al. suggest these findings indicate that males
and females experience factors of school safety and victimization differently, and these
findings are consistent across grades. However, contrary to Furlong et al. who found that
males exhibit higher levels of physical and verbal harassment and weapons and physical
attack participation, the ethnographic study of Philadelphia female adolescents by Ness
(2004) shows a marked increase in violence and violent behavior in females. This
disparity may be attributed to setting, as the participants of Ness’s study were surviving
in a tough neighborhood without constructs and constraints of a school culture. This
study assesses whether these differences also translate into differences in reporting
behaviors.
Ethnicity
Using the theoretical framework of Critical Race Theory and Disability Studies,
Watts and Erevelles (2004) argue from their meta-analysis of literature on school
violence that the school system produces groups of outsiders, those who do not fit the
normative definitions set by the school. These adolescents are perceived as deviant and
efforts by the school to either include or discard them further alienate the identified
adolescent group. Welsh (2000) suggests that safety, planning and action, respect for
students, and fairness and clarity of rules positively impact school climate and culture.
Watts and Erevelles (2004) suggest that the very constructs and accepted norms of the

38
positive school climate further serve to marginalize certain youth. Their meta-analysis
also suggests that real violence in schools stems from oppressive social conditions and
the oppressive nature of a narrowly codified school climate. They further contend that
these oppressive social conditions and narrowly codified school climate engender
feelings of vulnerability, anger, and resistance to school expectations for low-income
African-American and Latino male students (Watts & Erevelles, 2004).
In-Group/Out-Group Membership
The Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, and Reicher (2002) study hypothesizes that people
self-categorize using social characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, or some other
determining factor, such as religion, academic achievement, or area of residence. This
self-categorization may have an effect on how student bystanders react to violent
situations based upon how other members of the self-selected group react. Levine et al.
further proposed that the social connection, or “in-group” membership (p. 1453), might
facilitate intervention if the in-group members intervene and have a positive relationship
with the victim. Conversely, if the in-group decides not to intervene, then the individual
group member will also opt for non-intervention. Additionally, if the victim or
perpetrator is not part of the self-selected group, or is an “out-group” member, an in-
group member’s actions may change. Although important to note here based upon peer
affiliation and reasons for connections and grouping, this concept will be discussed
further in the next section about bystander behavior.
Age, gender, ethnicity, school culture, in-group versus out-group membership,
and peer affiliation have been shown to both positively and negatively correlate with

39
bystander behavior. The next section examines the research about aspects of bystander
behavior: fear of retaliation, and bystander relationship to the victim and perpetrator.
Bystander Behavior
As defined by Berkowitz (2008, in press), “a bystander is someone who witnesses
a problem and does not do anything about it” (p. 4). The brutal murder of Kitty Genovese
in 1964 witnessed by 38 persons who did not intervene stimulated the seminal work in
bystander intervention by Latané and Darley (1970). However, research and literature
pertaining to bystander behavior is limited, with few studies conducted outside a
controlled laboratory setting.
Psychological Processes Affecting Reporting
Examining the findings of Latané and Darley ten years later, Latané and Nida
(1981) codify bystander behavior and intervention. According to the research of Latané
and Nida, based on the earlier work of Latané and Darley, three psychological processes
frame bystander behavior.
The first psychological process is audience inhibition, defined in the literature as
the bystander’s fear of embarrassment for misinterpreting an emergency situation and
intervening unnecessarily (Berkowitz, 2008, in press). Latané and Nida state that the
presence of others creates greater inhibition in the bystander and, therefore, deters
intervention. How do group norms for neutrality and non-intervention produce audience
inhibition in the student reporter?
The second psychological process is social influence. Latané and Nida (1981)
define social influence as an ambiguous situation viewed by others, and the individual’s

40
looking to others for clarity or a signal that the situation is an emergency and intervention
is warranted. Extending Latané and Nida’s definition, social influence buffers possible
reporters against retaliation, or the fear of negative consequences for the person who
reports (Berkowitz, 2008, in press). How does group perception of certain types and
levels of violence as acceptable behavior generate social influence and affect reporting
behavior?
The third psychological process is diffusion of responsibility (Latané & Darley,
1970; Latané and Nida, 1981), wherein the presence of others shares the associated guilt
of non-intervention and reduces the psychological cost and possible fear of retaliation. In
an attempt to replicate the dissociative witnessing of the Genovese murder, Latané and
Darley (1970) conducted an experiment affording a subject isolated in a room, but
knowledgeable of other similarly isolated witnesses, the opportunity to intervene upon
hearing a fellow group member suffering a seizure. As the group size increased, the level
of reporting decreased. The researchers suggested that the more witnesses to violence, the
more diffusion of responsibility. Also, Latané and Darley’s (1970) study showed that the
increased number of interveners lessened the individual bystander’s inclination towards
intervention and possible subsequent retaliation for reporting. In the event of a student or
students’ witnessing of a violent act in the schoolyard, will a single student take
responsibility for intervening or reporting? This study sought to examine the contribution
of these variables to student reporting behavior, with major emphasis on diffusion of
responsibility from fear of retaliation, which is discussed next.

41
Fear of Retaliation
Some student bystanders learn to take care of their own problems with violence,
assume others will intervene as a coping mechanism (Rasmussen, Aber, & Bhana, 2004;
Rosenthal & Wilson, 2008), or accept community norms of dealing with violence
(Horowitz, 1987; Ness, 2004). In his study of bystander intervention and fear of crime,
Zhong (2009) found that fear of the type and the location of crime had a robust and
consistent affect on bystander intervention. Latané and Nida (1981) suggested that
audience inhibition, social influence, and diffusion of responsibility are mediating factors
in a bystander’s willingness to report.
According to Berkowitz (2008, in press), another salient factor that may inhibit
reporting is fear. Student bystanders may choose not to report for fear of retaliation, a
legitimate fear that they will suffer negative consequences as a result of reporting.
Berkowitz suggests that this retaliation may take the form of physical harm, but may also
include “emotional harm, retaliation, lack of support from superiors for attempting to
intervene, and negative reactions or comments from others” (p. 14). Additionally, if the
student lives in a violent community or has had a previous negative experience because
of reporting, then fear of retaliation is heightened. Berkowitz (2008, in press) suggests
that fear of retaliation may diminish if an indirect option for intervention, such as safe
zones for reporting, identified trusted adults, or a reporting hotline, is available to the
student. As cited earlier in this review, Latané and Darley (1970) define this indirect
intervention as “detour intervention.”

42
Are there successful models for indirect reporting? Does student reporting
increase if students feel protected? Does the bystander’s relationship to the victim or
perpetrator influence reporting? This question is addressed in the next section.
Reporter’s Relationship to the Victim and Perpetrator
Unresolved questions as to how the reporter’s relationship to the victim may
affect intervention have remained since Latané and Darley’s (1970) landmark study on
bystander intervention (Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002). According to Levine
et al. (2002), the original experiments of Latané and Darley did not address motivating
factors of social category relations. Contrary to earlier understandings of social inhibition
effect on bystander intervention (as number of onlookers increases, the level of
intervention decreases) (Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981), Levine et al.
(2002) suggested that it is not merely the presence of other bystanders but who those
bystanders are that affect bystander intervention. The Levine et al. (2002) study
hypothesized that other bystanders have an effect on reporting behavior if the bystanders
share a common social category, based, for example, on gender, ethnicity, age, or some
other determining characteristic. Levine et al. further proposed that the social connection,
or “in-group” membership (p. 1453), might facilitate intervention if the in-group
members intervene and have a positive relationship with the victim. Conversely, if the
in-group decides not to intervene, then the individual group member will also opt for
non-intervention.
Phillips and Cooney (2005), using a population of incarcerated males, examined
third-party intervention in the context of direct involvement and the exclusion of

43
authority figures. In the study, the findings indicated that the type of third-party
relationship (friend, relative, gang affiliate, or criminal ally) with the victim/or
perpetrator in a violent action might generate a range of responses. Depending on the
third-party relationship to the victim/perpetrator, the bystander may become a partisan
and join the fight, remain outside of the violent act, or mediate settlement. At no time did
the third-party contact an authority figure to intervene, keeping policing local. The
exclusion of authority figures and self-policing are supported in previously cited studies
of Horowitz (1987) and Ness (2004). Haberman and Dill (1995) discerned from a survey
conducted with middle and high school students in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, that students
assumed school adult staff members should only act upon in-school violence, and that
neighborhood violence fell within the exclusive domain of friends.
As studies concerning in-group membership with perpetrators and bystander
intervention are few, Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, and Reicher (2002) suggest that more
research should be conducted about the reporter/perpetrator relationship. This
dissertation addressed bystander behavior from the perspective of the bystander’s
relationship to the victim and the perpetrator.
Research (Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002: Philips & Cooney, 2005)
suggests that the witnessing party’s fear of retaliation for reporting in addition to his or
her relationship to the victim or perpetrator affect bystander behavior. What factors apart
from the immediate microsystem, peer affiliation or confluence of peer groups, affect
bystander behavior? What variables from the community (exosystem) and the school

44
(mesosystem) affect bystander behavior? At what level of influence do these spheres
affect bystander behavior and willingness to report violence?
Summary and Conclusion
The preceding literature review references ancillary characteristics of
neighborhoods, schools, and individuals that are likely to impact violence and reporting.
Demographic characteristics of age, gender, and ethnicity have been addressed.
Additionally, the ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and the bystander
behavior framework of Latané and Darley (1970) were discussed as the theoretical lenses
of the literature review. The theory and framework are appropriate as the adolescent
interacting with peers, school, and neighborhood is shaped by and shapes behavior
influenced by norms and expectations of each system, and the benefits derived from
community, school, and peer resources in each system.
The purpose of this study is to stimulate deeper understanding of the relationship
of neighborhood, school, and peers with bystander behavior and violence reporting.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology for obtaining data with which to better understand
bystander behavior.

45
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
The purpose of this study is to deepen the understanding of the helping and
hindering structures present in secondary schools relative to students reporting violence.
The findings will broaden understanding of bystander behavior and examine the
relationship among community levels of violence, school climate, age, gender, and
ethnicity of students and their willingness to report violence. In summary, this study will
address and assess student attitudes, expectations, and factual knowledge toward violence
reporting, and factors that promote or inhibit reporting.
Chapter 3 describes the design of this research study. Included in this chapter are
the research questions, descriptions of the population and sample, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis.
Research Questions
In the context of understanding the conditions under which a student would or
would not report a violent act at school, the study explores the following:
1. Is there a difference in a students’ willingness to report violence they hear about
or witness in school based on the level of violence in the community?
2. Does student perception of school climate relate to a student’s willingness to
report violence they hear about or witness in school?
3. Is there a difference in a students’ willingness to report violence they hear about
or witness in school based on their relationship with the victim or the perpetrator?

46
4. Do these relationships vary significantly based on age, gender, ethnicity, and
school of attendance of the bystander and/or the victim or perpetrator?
5. To what extent does student knowledge about the resources available to them
relate to their willingness to report?
6. Does a student’s perception of the personal consequences of reporting violent acts
inhibit reporting?
Research Design
The purpose of this study was to generate sufficient data to conduct an analysis of
factors contributing to and hindering reporting behaviors in secondary school students
witnessing or hearing about violent acts at school. Students were asked to report their
perceptions and knowledge about the dependent variable of the study: their willingness to
report violent acts witnessed or about which they heard. The independent variables were
level of community violence, perceptions of school climate, reporter relationship to the
victim or perpetrator, the reporter’s knowledge about resources available to him/her, and
fear of retaliation. The independent variables also included age, gender, and ethnicity.
Students were surveyed from two high schools in the same incorporated city in a
Southern California community 3.3 miles apart. These students were demographically
similar, but based on extractable crime statistics, lived in neighborhoods that contrasted
in the level of recorded violent crime. Each school’s enrollment had a limited zip code
range and could be described as neighborhood schools. The neighborhood in which each
school situated had recorded crime statistics and these along with slight demographic and
socioeconomic status variations represented the only measurable differences in the two

47
schools. Additionally, the selected schools operated under a similar governance model
and follow similar structures for a positive school climate. Based on the number of
independent and dependent variables of the study, a target of a minimum of 300
completed surveys will be required from all surveys completed. The selected students
will represent a convenience sample.
A quantitative approach was utilized because the nature of the questions posed in
the survey was focused on establishing frequency patterns and determining the
significance of relationships between the variables. A quantitative analysis allowed the
frequencies and correlations to be measured systematically using empirical evidence,
minimizing the subjectivity of the researcher. The collection of quantitative responses
also allowed a more precise statistical analysis that increased the mathematical accuracy
of correlative relationships from which to determine levels of relationships among the
variables (Creswell, 2008).
The purpose of non-experimental research designs is to examine and illuminate
existing characteristics of the sample population such as attitudes and relationships
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2005). This study used a non-experimental research design to
focus on secondary students’ willingness to report violent acts in school they had
witnessed or heard about.
Population and Sample
The study gathered responses from a convenience sample of secondary
students at two high schools, addressed a student’s willingness to report violent acts, and
examined if a respondent understood how and to whom to make a report. Data analysis

48
was conducted on all completed questionnaires meeting the minimum requirements of
number per school and aggregate total. 590 students were in the original study sample.
406 students (68.8%) completed all required paperwork to participate. The return rate for
completed surveys was 88.7% (n=360). The sample was representative of the ethnicity,
gender, and age percentages represented in the populations of the two schools.
To obtain the student sample, the researcher contacted the administrators of each
school and shared the survey, information sheets and permission forms, and stipulated the
minimum number of students needed from each site to generate adequate data to
complete the analyses of the variables. The administrators were allowed to select
teachers or classes that would generate students in the age range of 14 to 18. The
researcher then made on-site visits and spoke to 11 classes at one school, School 1, and 3
classes at the second school, School 2. The class size varied from 28 to 40 students per
class in School 1 to 25 to 55 students per class in School 2. The introduction and study
overview took approximately 20 minutes per class.
Both high schools deliver a 9-12 curriculum to a population between the ages of
14 and 18 years old. Both schools operate on a 10-month, traditional calendar. For 2008-
09 the enrollment for School 1 was 2186 students. The ethic breakdown was 33.44%
White, 26.81% Hispanic, 23.92% Asian, 8.33% Filipino, 3.43% Black, and 4.07% other,
multiple, or no response. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students comprised 16.00%,
English Learners 9.00%, and Students with Disabilities 6.00% of the population. The
enrollment for School 2 was 2215 students. The ethic breakdown was 23.30% White,
26.81% Hispanic, 30.84% Asian, 4.38% Filipino, 7.72% Black, and 9.17% other,

49
multiple, or no response. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students comprised 24.00%,
English Learners 9.00%, and Students with Disabilities 7.00% of the population (TUSD,
2009).
Instrumentation
A questionnaire developed by the researcher (with consultation of the Thematic
Dissertation Cohort and the dissertation chair) was administered in a paper and pencil
format. The questionnaire consisted of 5 sections, each addressing specific independent
variables to be studied. The sections addressed student background information,
community characteristics, school climate, bystander relationship to victim/perpetrator,
and reporting consequences. A small number of questions contained were culled and
modified from existing school safety surveys. Questions 2a-d and f-h about school
climate were gathered from three distinct surveys (CREP, 1989; Search Institute, 2009;
Tschannen-Moran, 2004). The survey consisted of 21 questions composed of
dichotomous and continuous response, Likert-type questions. Five continuous response
questions contained multiple parts. The total number of questions in the survey was 52.
The questionnaire was field tested with students at an alternate school site in the
incorporated city who were 18 years-old and could consent for themselves. The purpose
of the pilot was to ensure that the survey items were clearly worded for the population in
order for the researcher to make any adjustments prior to full implementation of the
questionnaire.
Section 3 of the questionnaire, entitled “Community Characteristics,” addressed
research question 1. In this section, student perception of the level of community

50
violence was gathered and compared with the police crime statistics for the
neighborhood. These crime statistic data were factored in to all analyses, as student self-
reported perception about bystander behavior and willingness to report violence in school
could be cross-tabulated with levels of recorded community violent acts over a prescribed
period of time. Section 4 of the questionnaire, entitled “School Climate,” addressed
research questions 2, 3, and 4, and gathered data to analyze student perception of school
climate and trusted adults, principal’s characteristics, and student factual knowledge
about where and to whom to report violent acts. Questions 6 and 7 of this section
specifically asked for students to rate their willingness to report and if by reporting they
would feel the school climate and any system for reporting would protect them from
retaliation by either the perpetrator or their peer group. Section 5 of the questionnaire,
entitled “Bystander Relationship to Victim/Perpetrator,” addressed research question 3,
and gathered responses about a student’s willingness to report based upon the type of
relationship with the victim or the perpetrator. Section 6 of the questionnaire, entitled
“Reporting Consequences,” addressed research question 6 about students’ willingness to
report and the possible consequences they thought might occur because of their reporting.
Section 2, entitled “Student Background Information,” gathered demographic data for the
independent variables of age, gender, and ethnicity (see Table 1).
In addition to the questionnaire, the criminal activity for each school community
was gathered from a national crime-recording database, SpotCrime.com. This website
disaggregates reported crimes by city neighborhood and was used to compare levels of

51
violent crimes in each of the surveyed school’s neighborhood. This information was used
to assess student perception of community violence prevalent in their school community.
Table 1: Research Questions, Independent and Dependent Variables, and Statistical Tests
Research Question Independent Variable Dependent Variable Statistical Test
RQ 1
Is there a difference in a
student’s willingness to
report violence they hear
about or witness in school
based on the level of
violence in the community?
Q. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
Perception of community
violence
(interval scale)
Community crime statistics
(ordinal scale)
Q. 3.6
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
Simple regression
RQ 2
Does student perception of
school climate relate to a
student’s willingness to
report violence they hear
about or witness in school?
Q. 4.1, 4.2.a-h
Perception of school
climate
(interval scale)
Q. 4.4, 4.5, 6.2
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
Simple regression
RQ 2 Q. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Demographic information
(nominal scale)
Q. 4.3
Trusted adult
(nominal scale)
Chi-square
RQ 3
Is there a difference in a
student’s willingness to
report violence they hear
about or witness in school
based on his or her
relationship with the victim
or the perpetrator?
Q. 5.1, 5.2.a-j, 5.3.a-j
Reporter’s relationship to
victim/perpetrator
(interval scale)
Q. 4.4, 4.5, 6.2
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
Multiple regression

52
Table 1, Continued
Research Question Independent Variable Dependent Variable Statistical Test
RQ 4
Do these relationships vary
significantly based on age,
gender, ethnicity, and school
of the bystander and/or the
victim or perpetrator?
Q. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Demographic information
(nominal scale)
Community crime statistics
(ordinal scale)
Q. 4.4, 4.5, 6.2
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
t-test
3-way ANOVA
RQ 5
To what extent does student
knowledge about the
resources available to them
relate to their willingness to
report?
Q. 4.3, 4.6, 4.7
Knowledge of resources
(nominal/interval scale)
Q. 4.4, 4.5, 6.2
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
Simple regression
RQ 6
Does a student’s perception
of the personal consequences
of reporting violent acts
inhibit reporting?

Q. 3.4
Witness community violence
(nominal scale)
Q. 3.6
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
t-test
RQ 6 Q. 6.1.a, 6.1.b
Fear of retaliation
(interval scale)
Q. 4.4, 4.5, 6.2
Reporting behavior
(interval scale)
Simple regression

Data Collection
Permission was obtained from the University of Southern California’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) and a school in Torrance Unified School District prior to
administration of the pilot questionnaire. Once permission to proceed from both

53
organizations was granted, a consent form (Appendix C, p. 106) with a copy of the
survey (Appendix A, p. 92) was delivered to the 18 year-old students from the school
selected for the pilot sample. The student consent form, which contained an information
sheet about the content and purpose of the survey (Appendix F, p. 114), was delivered to
the selected student pilot group. After obtaining student consent, the paper and pencil
pilot survey was administered. The results from the initial pilot survey for variables of
interest such as school climate, level of community violence, relationship to
victim/perpetrator, and fear of retaliation were evaluated and assessed for respondent
understanding of questions, format, and for missing or incomplete survey items, based
upon student reports. Once the pilot survey was evaluated and modified or amended,
procedures for disseminating information to parents (Appendix E, p. 112) parental
informed consent (Appendix B, p. 103) and student assent (Appendix D, p. 109) were
followed for schoolwide administration of the survey at the two selected high schools.
The survey was administered to the pre-determined high schools in classes and groups
identified by the local school’s administrative representative or designee. The two high
schools were given a stipend equivalent to $0.50 per qualified participant survey to use in
their student body account.
Data Analysis
The data was collected, grouped according to variables related, and entered into
Microsoft Excel and uploaded into SPSS v.16.0. The relationships among the variables of
community violence, perceptions of school climate, age, gender, and ethnicity, factual

54
knowledge about reporting, fear of retaliation, and reporting behavior was examined
using Chi-square, correlation coefficients, t-test, ANOVA, and regression analysis.
Correlational relationships among the independent variables were analyzed for
statistical significance of the relationship among the independent variables of level of
community violence, perception of school climate, factual knowledge about and possible
consequences of reporting, demographic variables, and bystander’s relationship to the
victim or perpetrator, and his/her willingness to report a violent act at school. As
encapsulated in Table 1 (p. 50-51), in order to examine the relationships between the
outlined variables and constructs of interests, simple regression, t-test, ANOVA, and Chi-
square statistical tests were run, using SPSS. In addition, descriptive statistics and
correlation coefficients were obtained.
Through these analyses the intention was to gain a greater understanding of the
relationships between the variables of community violence, school climate, age, gender,
ethnicity, knowledge of resources, and fear of retaliation and a student’s willingness to
report. Additionally, the information gathered might inform possible policies and
program recommendations that schools might utilize to increase a student’s willingness
to report violent acts at school. Chapter 4 discusses the findings of the student surveys.

55
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the previously stated research
questions: 1) Is there a difference in students’ willingness to report violence they hear
about or witness in school based on the level of violence in the community; 2) Does
student perception of school climate relate to students’ willingness to report violence they
hear about or witness in school; 3) Is there a difference in students’ willingness to report
violence they hear about or witness in school based on their relationship with the victim
or the perpetrator; 4) Do these relationships vary significantly based on age, gender,
ethnicity, and school of the bystander and/or the victim or perpetrator; 5) To what extent
does student knowledge about the resources available to them relate to their willingness
to report; 6) Do students’ perception of the likelihood of personal consequences of
reporting violent acts inhibit reporting?
Intercorrelations
Results of the intercorrelations between demographic variables (age, gender,
ethnicity, and school of attendance), neighborhood danger, school climate, reporting
behavior, and violence deserved revealed specific findings (see Table 2).
There were a number of weak intercorrelative findings. Two weak associations
were detected between race and willingness to report crimes. Specifically, White
participants appeared to be somewhat less likely to be willing to report crimes (r = .13, p
< .05), and Asian participants appeared to be somewhat more willing (r = -.22, p < .01)

56
compared to other races. A weak association was detected revealing that White
respondents were more likely to disagree with the statement “I believe that some students
deserve to be beaten up, robbed, or in some way physically harmed” (r = .14, p < .05)
compared to all other races in the sample.
Table 2: Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
1. Age
2. Gender -.03
3. White .09 -.07
4. Hispanic -.07 .07 -
5. African-American .04 .01 - -
6. Asian-American -.08 -.03 - - -
7. Other .06 .01 - - - -
8. Neighborhood Danger .02 .02 < .01 -.01 .04 -.03 .03
9. School Climate -.09 -.15** .02 -.07 -.07 .04 .07 .33**
10. Reporting Behavior .02 -.22** .13* .04 -.02 -.21** .07 .233** .33**
11. Violence Deserved -.02 -.29** .14* -.04 .01 -.07. -.02 .25** .29** .39**
Note. The computed Pearson Product correlation for gender shows as a relationship between male and
female responses.
*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.
Stronger correlations appeared about gender and reporting, and neighborhood
danger and reporting. Compared to males, females appeared to view schools as safer (r =
-.15, p < .01) and were more likely to be willing to report violence (r = -22, p < .01).
Conversely, females were also more likely to endorse the statement “I believe that some

57
students deserve to be beaten up, robbed, or in some way physically harmed” (r = -.29, p
< .01). Higher reported neighborhood danger was modestly positively associated with
school climate (r = .33, p < .01). Higher reported neighborhood danger was also
associated with less likelihood to report violent acts (r = .233, p < .01) and a higher
endorsement of the statement “I believe that some students deserve to be beaten up,
robbed, or in some way physically harmed” (r = .25, p < .01).
Student respondents did not relate the aggregate characteristics of a positive
school climate to willingness to report, and variables of a positive school climate did not
increase a student’s likelihood of reporting. As a result, a positive school climate was
associated with less likelihood to report violent acts (r = .33, p < .01) and a higher
endorsement of the statement “I believe that some students deserve to be beaten up,
robbed, or in some way physically harmed” (r = .29, p < .01). Finally, a student
endorsing the statement “I believe that some students deserve to be beaten up, robbed, or
in some way physically harmed” was associated with lower likelihood to report violent
acts (r = .39, p < .01).
Research Question 1: Is there a difference in students’ willingness to report violence
they hear about or witness in school based on the level of violence in the community?
In order to test the suitability of combining the seven questions regarding
neighborhood danger into a single scale, Cronbach's alpha was computed to assess
internal consistency. While slightly different anchors were used for two of the questions,
all were scored on a 5-point scale and it was concluded that they were substantively
similar enough to allow collapsing into a single scale.

58
Analysis revealed that the full 7-item scale demonstrated adequate internal
reliability (α = 0.77), with single item deletions making substantively negligible
improvements to the overall alpha. The decision was thus made to utilize all seven items
to create a single, summed scale of neighborhood danger with higher scores reflecting
higher perceptions of neighborhood danger.
Simple linear regression was conducted to examine whether students’ perceptions
of neighborhood danger would predict their self-reported willingness to call the police to
report crimes in their neighborhoods (see Table 3).
Table 3: Summary of Simple Linear Regression of Neighborhood Danger on Reporting
Crime (N = 360)
Variable B SE B β
Constant 1.80 0.18
Neighborhood Danger 0.04 0.01 0.15**
Note. R
2
for overall model = .02 (p < .01).
** p < .01.
According to the analysis of respondents’ self-reported willingness to report
violence and violent crimes reported over a specific time period in their neighborhood as
recorded on a national database (www.spotcrime.com), neighborhood danger predicted
whether students were likely to report neighborhood crimes. The more dangerous the
neighborhood, the less likely the student was to indicate that he/she would call the police
to report a crime. However, neighborhood danger (R
2
= .02) appears to only have a very
small effect as it predicts 2% of the variability observed in students’ willingness to report
violence.

59
Research Question 2: Does student perception of school climate relate to a student’s
willingness to report violence they hear about or witness in school?
In order to test the suitability of combining the three questions about students’
willingness to report violence into a single scale, Cronbach's alpha was computed to
assess the internal consistency. Analysis revealed that the 3-item scale demonstrated high
internal reliability (α = 0.89), with single item deletions failing to improve the overall
alpha. The decision was thus made to utilize all three items to create a single, summed
scale of students’ willingness to report campus violence with higher scores reflecting
unwillingness to report campus violence, as the three items analyzed were reverse coded.
Hierarchical linear regression modeling was conducted to determine whether
perceptions of school safety and school climate would affect willingness to report school
violence (see Table 4). Due to strong theoretical plausibility, a single question regarding
perceptions of school safety was forced-entered in the first block. Given the variety of
measures of school climate and no guiding theoretical or previously field-tested order of
entry, eight items assessing school climate were entered into the second block of analysis
and selected using a stepwise methods.
To test for a relationship between students’ willingness to report and to which
campus adult they would most likely report school trouble, a series of chi-square analyses
were conducted. In order to increase expected counts per cell, student age was collapsed
into three age categories (14-15, 16, 17-18). In addition, as students could nominate up to
three people to whom to report trouble, analyses had to be performed independently for
nomination category (e.g., assistant principal). To adjust for the large family-wise error

60
rate resulting from this multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing
the standard alpha level by the number of comparisons being made. Thus, results were
considered statistically reliable only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.005 (.05/10
comparisons).
Table 4: Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression of School Climate on Willingness
to Report School Violence (N = 360)
Variable B SE B β
Step 1
School safety 0.29 0.21 .07
Step 2
Supportive principal 0.71 0.18 .23***
Certainty of consequences 0.56 0.16 .19***
Knowing who to report to 0.54 0.20 .15**
Note. R
2
= .08 for Step 1; ΔR
2
= .15 (p < .01).
** p < .01. *** p < .001
Of the ten comparisons made, the only statistically significant difference in the
person students would most likely report trouble to was for school deans (X
(2)
2
= 12.55, p
< 0.001). Examining the observed and expected cell values revealed that 14 and 15 year-
old students were more likely to nominate their dean as someone to report trouble to than
were older students.
To test for a relationship between students’ genders and their nominations of the
campus adult to whom they would most likely report school trouble, a series of chi-
square analyses were conducted. To adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting
from multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing the standard alpha

61
level by the number of comparisons being made. Thus, results were considered
statistically reliable only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.005 (.05/10 comparisons).
Of the ten comparisons made the only statistically significant difference in the
person to whom students would most likely report trouble was for parent (X
(1)
2
= 16.13, p
< 0.001). Examining the observed and expected cell values revealed that female students
were substantially more likely to nominate their parents as someone to report trouble to
than were male students.
To test for a relationship between students’ schools and their nominations of
whom they would most likely report school trouble, a series of chi-square analyses were
conducted. Analyses were restricted to two student schools, as these campuses could be
paired to city crime statistics data resulting in a lower crime condition for School 1 (45
school neighborhood crimes reported from April 14, 2009 to April 14, 2010) and a higher
crime condition for School 2 (172 school neighborhood crimes reported over the same
time period). To adjust for the large family-wise error rate resulting from multiple testing,
a Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing the standard alpha level by the number
of comparisons being made. Thus, results were considered statistically reliable only if
they had a significance of p ≤ 0.005 (.05/10 comparisons).
Of the ten comparisons made the only statistically significant difference in the
person to whom students would most likely report trouble was for school counselors
(X
(1)
2
= 11.33, p = 0.001). Examining the observed and expected cell values revealed that
students in School 2 were substantially more likely to nominate their school counselor as
someone to whom to report trouble than were students in School 1.

62
In this final model, school safety did not appear to predict likelihood to report
school violence, but three of the school climate variables did. Specifically, having a
supportive principal, feeling that one would get in trouble if one broke a rule, and
knowing to whom to report were all positively associated with likelihood to predict
school violence.
In a comparison of the relative power of the variables of a supportive principal,
certainty of consequences, and knowing to whom to report, the three can be compared to
each other by looking at the standardized beta (β), which is measured in the same units.
Having a supportive principal was the strongest predictor. However, because a stepwise
approach, which is entirely data-driven, was used to come up with these three significant
predictors, some caution should be made when interpreting the associated beta values, as
each possible variable required the respondent to address related, but not necessarily
interdependent support options or consequences.
Research Question 3: Is there a difference in students’ willingness to report violence
they hear about or witness in school based on their relationship with the victim or the
perpetrator?
In order to assess the impact of various relationships between observer and victim
on the observer’s self-reported likelihood to report a violent act, a series of paired
samples t-tests and a repeated-measures ANOVA were conducted. Specifically,
comparisons were conducted based on whether the observer knew the victim, likes the
victim, is the same gender as the victim, is the same ethnicity as the victim, and is the
same age as the victim. As a total of four t-tests were conducted, a Bonferroni correction

63
was applied by dividing the standard alpha level by the number of comparisons being
made. Thus, results were considered statistically reliable only if they had a significance
of p ≤ 0.0125 (.05/4 comparisons).
Table 5: Summary of Comparisons of Reporting Behavior Based on Relationship to the
Victim (N = 360)

Variable

Mean

Mean
Test
Statistic

df

sig
t-test yes no
Know victim 1.79 2.43 -11.64 359 < .001*
Like victim 1.88 2.73 -11.31 359 < .001*
Same gender 2.13 2.06 2.30 359 .02
different
ethnicity
overall rate
Ethnicity 2.16 2.74 -11.54 359 < .001*
*p < .0125
A series of paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess the impact of knowing
the victim, liking the victim, being the same gender as the victim, and being the same
ethnicity as the victim. As shown in Table 5, all effects except gender were found to be
statistically significant (p < 0.0125 for all). Specifically, knowing the victim or liking the
victim results in higher likelihood of reporting violent acts against them. Interestingly,
participants were more likely to suggest that they would report school violence directed
at victims of different ethnicities than their own compared to their overall willingness to
report acts of violence (likelihood to report violence directed at same ethnicity victims
was not assessed).

64
In addition, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
likelihood of reporting violent acts would vary with the victim’s age (younger, same, or
older). The overall model showed that the likelihood of reporting violent acts did vary
with victim’s age (F
(1,359)
= 1613.06, p < 0.001). Post hoc testing using a Bonferroni
correction revealed that all three victim’s age conditions were statistically significantly
different from one another (p < 0.001 for all) with participants indicating they were most
likely to report acts of violence against younger students, somewhat less likely to report
acts of violence against same age students, and least likely to report acts of violence
against older students.
In order to assess the impact of various relationships between observer and
perpetrator on the observer’s self-reported likelihood to report a violent act, a series of
paired samples t-tests and a repeated-measures ANOVA were conducted. Specifically,
comparisons were conducted based on whether the observer knew the perpetrator, liked
the perpetrator, was the same gender as the perpetrator, was the same ethnicity as the
perpetrator, and was the same age as the perpetrator. As a total of four t-tests were
conducted, a Bonferroni correction was applied by dividing the standard alpha level by
the number of comparisons being made. Thus, results were considered statistically
reliable only if they had a significance of p ≤ 0.0125 (.05/4 comparisons).
A series of paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess the impact of knowing
the perpetrator, liking the perpetrator, being the same gender as the perpetrator, and being
the same ethnicity as the perpetrator. As shown in Table 6, all effects except gender were
found to be statistically significant (p < 0.0125 for all). Specifically, knowing the

65
perpetrator or liking the perpetrator results in a lower likelihood of reporting violent acts
committed by the perpetrator. Participants indicated that they were more likely to report
school violence committed by perpetrators of different ethnicities than their own
compared to their overall willingness to report acts of violence (likelihood to report
violence directed at same ethnicity victims was not assessed).
Table 6: Summary of Comparisons of Reporting Behavior Based on Relationship to the
Perpetrator (N = 360)

Variable

Mean

Mean
Test
Statistic

df

sig
t-test yes no
Know victim 2.69 2.39 5.46 359 < .001
Like victim 2.82 2.14 10.45 359 < .001
Same gender 2.46 2.46 0.15 359 .88
different
ethnicity
overall rate
Ethnicity 2.43 2.74 -6.04 < .001
*p < .0125

In addition, a repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to determine whether
likelihood of reporting violent acts would vary with the perpetrator’s age (younger, same,
or older). It was discovered that the assumption of sphericity was violated, so a
Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used (ε = .84). Based on the overall model, it appears
that the likelihood of reporting violent acts did not vary with the perpetrator’s age
(F
(1.684,604.426)
= 2.531, p < 0.09).

66
Research Question 4: Does students’ self-reported likelihood to report violent acts vary
significantly based on age, gender, ethnicity, and school of attendance?
In order to determine whether students’ self-reported likelihood to report violent
acts varies significantly based on age, gender, ethnicity, and school, a series of one-way
ANOVAs and independent samples t-tests were conducted.
Table 7: Summary of Comparisons of Reporting Behavior Based on Demographics

Variable
Test
Statistic

df

sig
t-test
Gender 4.20 358 < 0.001
School 3.67 336 < 0.001
ANOVA
Age 0.96 4, 355 .43
Ethnicity 5.08 4, 355 .001

Independent samples t-tests revealed that females were statistically significantly
more likely to indicate that they would report violence than were males (see Table 7). In
addition, students in School 2 responded significantly less willingness to report violence
than were students in School 1. In other words, the more violent the school neighborhood
based upon reported crime, the less likely a student from the neighborhood school would
be to report violence.
A one-way ANOVA detected no differences in students’ self reported likelihood
to report violent acts by age. However, Table 7 shows at least one statistically significant
difference was detected between the ethnic groups surveys. Specifically, post hoc testing

67
with a Bonferroni correction revealed that Asian American students were statistically
significantly more likely to indicate a willingness to report violent acts than participants
who self-identified as White, Hispanic, or Other (p < 0.05 for all). No other differences
were statistically significant.
Research Question 5: To what extent does student knowledge about the resources
available to them relate to their willingness to report?
Regression modeling was conducted to examine whether knowing where to report
violent acts and to whom to report them would impact students’ self-reported likelihood
to report violent acts (see Table 8). The two variables were entered as a single block for
analysis.
Table 8: Summary of Simple Linear Regression of Neighborhood Danger on Reporting
Crime (N = 360)
Variable B SE B β
Constant 5.47 0.41
Knowing where to report 1.03 0.21 0.29***
Knowing who to report to 0.40 0.19 0.13*
Note. R
2
for overall model = .14 (p < .001).
*p < .05. ** p < .001
The overall model was significant, indicating knowing where and to whom to
report crimes predicted higher likelihood to report violence. Both variables were
statistically significant predictors in this model.

68
Research Question 6: Does a student’s perception of the likelihood of personal
consequences of reporting violent acts inhibit reporting?
An independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if a student’s
perception of the likelihood of personal consequences would impact a student’s
willingness to call the police to report crimes in his/her neighborhoods and schools.
The independent samples t-test revealed that students who had not witnessed
violence in their neighborhood were statistically significantly more likely to indicate their
willingness to report a violent crime than were their peers who had witnessed violence in
their neighborhood (t
(158.28)
= -3.658, p < 0.001). The assumption of equality of variance
was found to be violated in this analysis, so the degrees of freedom were corrected to
compensate.
Table 9: Summary of Linear Regression of Consequences of Reporting Violence on
Likelihood of Reporting School Violence (N = 360)
Variable B SE B β
Constant 3.15 0.34
Lack of peer support 1.73 0.13 0.60***
Perpetrator retaliation 0.28 0.11 0.12*
Note. R
2
= .45 for Step 1 (p < .001); ΔR
2
= .01 (p < .05).
*p < .05. ***p < .001
In order to test whether the perceived likelihood of consequences for reporting
violent acts would impact the likelihood of reporting violence at school, regression
modeling was conducted to explore the impact of lack of peer support to report a crime
and the reporter’s fear of perpetrator retaliation. Both variables were entered in a single
block and selected using a step-wise approach (see Table 9).

69
Both variables, lack of peer support and fear of perpetrator retaliation were
statistically significant negative predictors of student willingness to report violent acts
they witness, with lack of peer support being comparatively a greater negative predictor
of students willingness to report.
Summary of Findings
The analyses of the dependent and independent variables are summarized in this
section, with a concentration on significant findings. According to the analysis of
respondents’ self-reported willingness to report violence and level of violent crimes in
their neighborhood, neighborhood danger predicted whether students are likely to report
neighborhood crimes. The more dangerous the neighborhood, the less likely the student
was to indicate that he/she would call the police to report a crime. When the data were
disaggregated by school, the students from School 2 (the school in the more violent
neighborhood based upon national crime statistics) reported less likelihood to report
violence. Findings comparing respondents’ answers about variables of school climate as a
predictor of reporting behavior, three variables (supportive principal, certainty of
consequences, and knowing to whom to report) ranked highest. In a comparison of the
relative power of each variable, having a supportive principal was the strongest predictor.
Also, responses that indicated a student knew to whom and where to report crimes
predicted higher likelihood of a student to report violence. Both variables were
statistically significant predictors.
In terms of demographic indicators (age, gender, and ethnicity) participants
indicated they were most likely to report acts of violence against younger students,

70
somewhat less likely to report acts of violence against same age students, and least likely
to report acts of violence against older students. Females were statistically significantly
more likely to report violence than were males. Furthermore, participants indicated that
they were more likely to report school violence committed by perpetrators of different
ethnicities than their own compared to their overall willingness to report acts of violence.
Asian American students were statistically significantly more likely to indicate a
willingness to report violent acts than participants who self-identified as White, Hispanic,
or other.
In the area of peer affiliation and in-group and out-group membership, knowing
the victim or liking the victim resulted in higher likelihood of reporting violent acts
against them. Lack of peer support to report crimes and fear of perpetrator retaliation
were statistically significant negative predictors of student willingness to report violent
acts they witness, with lack of peer support being comparatively a greater predictor of
students’ willingness to report.
Students reported that they would be more likely to report violence in the safer
area of the city. This response to neighborhood violence and willingness to report
continued to the schoolyard, as students from School 1, situated in the less violent area of
the city, were more likely to report violence at school than the students of School 2,
situated in a more violent geographic area.
Students had an opportunity to note why they chose a specific campus adult (up to
three) to whom they would report a violent act. The response most frequently noted was

71
that they trusted their chosen individual(s) and that they felt their choices would know
what to do to handle the presented situation.
Students had an opportunity to note why they chose from very likely to very
unlikely on a 5-point Likert how likely they would report a violent act committed against
classmates to a school adult staff member. As students answered the overall reporting
question 2 in section 6 on a 5-point Likert scale, of those who indicated that they would
report, more often the reason given was that they felt it was the right thing to do. The
multiple respondents who most stated this opinion were Asian-American students, who
were statistically significantly more likely to indicate a willingness to report violent acts
than participants who self-identified as White, Hispanic, or other. For those who chose
not to report, a comment that stood out for both directness and as a clear warning was
“snitches get stitches.”
In the discussion to follow, Chapter 5 analyzes these data further and discusses
implications from the results of this study. Recommendations for future studies and
remedies and interventions schools may take to promote student willingness to report
violence are also discussed.

72
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The following continues the discussion of the findings from the previous chapter
in relation to the hypotheses of the study. Conclusions derived from the findings are
drawn and presented. Interpretations from the findings are suggested when the findings
do not support current research or move the current research into previously untested and
specific areas of reporting behavior. Recommendations for the school sites, limitations of
the study, implications for future research in the area of bystander behavior, and helping
and hindering mechanisms at school sites and for school districts are identified and
discussed.
Summary of Findings
From the findings, the hypotheses that formed from the research questions of the
study were supported or not supported in varying degrees for the sample population of
high school students from two distinct high schools in an incorporated city in Southern
California. Additionally, some findings either extend beyond current research or appear
to be contrary to current research in the areas of bystander behavior, willingness to report,
and social categorization. Findings that fell into this category are interpreted by the
researcher and framed by extant, related research.
Neighborhood Violence and Willingness to Report
According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the ecology of the community impacts the
perceptions and behaviors of its inhabitants. Simply stated, the reported violence in the
neighborhood of the school impacts the students’ reported willingness to report violence

73
at school. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is supported by the research into levels of violence
and willingness to report (Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001; Errante, 1997;
Jipguep & Sanders, 2003) and coping mechanisms that protect witnesses to violence from
psychological distress (Ceballo et al., 2001; Errante, 1997; Rasmussen, Aber, & Bhana,
2004; Rosenthal & Wilson, 2008). The analysis of the obtained data showed that students
living in the neighborhood with a higher crime rate, or School 2, self-reported less
willingness to report violent acts at school. However, linear regression performed on the
data showed that the overall effect of neighborhood violence only predicted 2% of the
variability, and that other tested variables had a greater effect on a student’s willingness
to report. The linear regression performed on the data suggest that there were more
variables that affected a student’s willingness to report violent acts at the two study
schools, and that students at the study schools might have developed other coping
mechanisms that affect willingness to report violence. This interpretation of the findings
is suggested in and supports the research of Rasmussen, Aber, and Bhana (2004) and
Rosenthal and Wilson (2008) where they found that effective coping mechanisms were
adopted and used by the subject regardless of the subject’s perceptions of safety and level
of exposure to violence. According to the findings of Ceballo et al. (2001), both not
reporting and underreporting are coping mechanisms. Specific to the students, schools,
and neighborhoods of this study, student willingness to report violence was only
marginally predicted by neighborhood violence, even though students in the higher crime
neighborhood self-reported less willingness to report violent acts at school.

74
Positive School Climate and Willingness to Report
Welsh (2000) in his meta-analysis of the Philadelphia school system codified
variables of school climate that promoted a sense of school safety. He suggested that a
positive school climate helped students avoid perceived violent or dangerous situations,
victimization, threats to safety, offending behaviors, and misconduct. Additionally,
respect for students, planning and action, fairness of rules, and clarity of rules
significantly predict levels of victimization (Furlong, Greif, Bates, Whipple, and Jimenez,
2005; Welsh, 2000). According to Welsh, avoidance of violence or violent behavior was
significantly predicted by respect for students, student influence, and clarity of rules, with
clarity of rules being the strongest predictor. The analyses of the data from this study
utilizing linear regression suggest that clarity of rules (knowledge of the consequences for
actions and knowing to whom to report) are two of three significant variables that predict
a student’s willingness to report violence.
Supported by previous research, this study found that students’ belief in their
having a supportive principal significantly predicted their willingness to report violence.
The presence of trusted adults in schools is a key underpinning of Stanton-Salazar’s
(1997) work on social capital, and Gladden (2002) and Wright and Fitzpatrick (2006)
suggest that social capital is school-site specific and needs to be explicitly utilized to
counter school violence. The key to Gladden and Wright and Fitzpatrick is that trusted
adults, as a foundation of school-site specific social capital, need to be explicitly and
clearly utilized. This suggests that clear avenues for reporting and specific individuals to

75
whom to report must be identified and made clear to students. Also, to trust an adult
implies that the adult will protect the anonymity of the reporter.
The students of this study selected the principal as the most trusted adult on their
campus. According to Scarnati (1994) in a study of effective leadership practices, the
principal must practice honesty and integrity, demonstrate care and understanding, and
eliminate fear. Furthermore, effective leadership also involves consistency and fairness
(Alvy & Robbins, 1998; Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Ramsey, 2006; Scarnati, 1994). The
principals of the schools of this study, according to the students, exhibited the qualities
expressed by the cited researchers of effective principal leadership. As an extension of
the question in the bystander behavior survey about which adult students would most
likely nominate for reporting, students were allowed an opportunity to offer written
insight as to why they made their particular selections (up to three) and their collective
response for their choice of principal was that the principal “knows what to do.”
Relationship to Victim and Perpetrator and Willingness to Report
Knowing the victim, liking the victim, and being of the same ethnicity as the
victim were found to be statistically significant in predicting a student’s willingness to
report. Specifically, knowing the victim or liking the victim resulted in a higher
likelihood of reporting violent acts against them. Interestingly, participants were more
likely to suggest that they would report school violence directed at victims of different
ethnicities than their own compared to their overall willingness to report acts of violence.
However, it must be noted that the survey did not specifically ask respondents to compare
or rank their level of reporting for their own ethnicity and an ethnicity other than their

76
own. Future studies may concentrate on gathering data of bystander intervention and
violence reporting based on the ethnicity of the witness and the victim, and whether
willingness to report varies when the witness and victim are of the same ethnicity or not.
What is suggested from the findings of this study is that students self-reported more
willingness to report violent acts at school when presented with the specific criteria of
being of a different ethnicity than the victim, but were less inclined in general to come
forward and report violence or violent acts when the violent acts or victim lacked any
qualifying characteristic such as age, gender, or ethnicity, and remained in the abstract.
Another, perhaps simpler, interpretation was that students responded based on social
desirability bias, which occurs when participants report answers they believe are
acceptable or desired by the researcher. The students, although guaranteed anonymity,
might have still felt compelled to show that they held no prejudice against ethnicities
other than their own and reported a higher likelihood of willingness to report.
Knowing the perpetrator, liking the perpetrator, and being the same ethnicity as
the perpetrator were found to be statistically significant in predicting a student’s
willingness to report. Specifically, knowing the perpetrator or liking the perpetrator
resulted in a lower likelihood of reporting violent acts committed by them. Participants
indicated that they were more likely to report school violence committed by perpetrators
of different ethnicities than their own compared to their overall willingness to report acts
of violence. As previously noted, the survey did not ask respondents to compare or rank
their level of reporting about their own ethnicity and an ethnicity other than their own.
Future studies may concentrate on gathering data of bystander intervention and violence

77
reporting based on the ethnicity of the witness and the perpetrator, and whether
willingness to report varies when the witness and perpetrator share the same ethnicity or
are of different ethnicities. As was previously suggested, what may be inferred from the
findings of this study is that students responded a greater willingness to report violent
acts at school when presented with specific criteria and characteristics of the perpetrator
being of a different ethnicity than the witness, but were less inclined overall to come
forward and report violence or violent acts. Also previously suggested, the student
responses for witness/perpetrator relationship could represent social desirability bias, or
the student not wanting to be perceived as prejudiced toward another ethnicity.
These findings of a student’s willingness to report based on the relationship to the
victim or perpetrator are supported by previous research of Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, and
Reicher (2002) in their expansion of social categorization theory. The Levine et al. study
suggested that other bystanders have an effect on reporting behavior if the bystanders
share a common social category (age, gender, ethnicity), and the findings of this study
extend their results, even indicating that the social connection, or in-group membership,
might facilitate intervention if the in-group members intervene and have a positive
relationship with the victim. Conversely, if the in-group decides not to intervene, then
the individual group member will also opt for non-intervention. Philips and Cooney
(2005) extended in-group/out-group affiliation to the penal system, and this study
supported their findings that third-party (witness) affiliation to the victim or perpetrator
positively correlated with taking action, though not necessarily reporting. The third stage
of Latané and Darley’s (1970) bystander behavior theory proposes that the witness takes

78
personal responsibility for the witnessed event, followed by the fourth stage of taking
action. Reporting the event to a trusted school adult is considered a stage four “detour
intervention,” minimizing the level of personal responsibility and reducing psychological
distress (Berkowitz, 2008, in press; Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981).
According to Philips and Cooney, a third party could intervene directly as a peacemaker
or participant combatant depending on his relationship with the in-group member,
whether he was the victim or the aggressor. The level of interaction from peacemaker to
participant combatant followed the group norms for such intervention.
Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and School of Attendance and Willingness to Report
The demographic variables of age, gender, ethnicity, school of attendance, and the
resultant findings run concurrently through all the hypotheses. Participants indicated they
were most likely to report acts of violence against younger students, somewhat less likely
to report acts of violence against same age students, and least likely to report acts of
violence against older students. Previous studies of Brank, Woolard, Brown, Fondacaro,
Luescher, Chinn, and Miller (2007), Furlong, Greif, Bates, Whipple, and Jimenez (2005),
and Spano, Vazsonyi, and Bolland (2008, in press) concentrated on age as a factor in
general reporting and the trusting of school adults. The findings of this study do not
specifically support the previous findings, but offer a glimpse into future research about
the age relationship of victim and witness. A suggested interpretation from the results of
this finding and one worthy of future research is that the victim’s age generated witness
intervention responses that could be predicated on the fear of the likelihood of retaliation
the victim or perpetrator may inflict as the victim’s age approximated or exceeded the

79
witness’s age. Also, from the perspective of in-group membership (Levine, Cassidy,
Brazier, & Reicher, 2002), a younger student might be part of the in-group and subject to
protection norms based on age. A victim of the same age as the witness, who might be an
in-group member, could be subject to group norms or characteristics of lessened violence
reporting, indicating the victim should be able to take care of the situation by him/herself.
An older victim might or might not be an in-group member, but might present a more
viable threat to the witness’s personal safety if he/she were to report. The scenarios could
apply for out-group members as well. In either interpreted dynamic, in-group/out-group
member reporting based upon relative age of witness or victim would be valuable for
future research.
Females were statistically significantly more likely to report violence than were
males. Previous studies by Furlong et al. (2005) revealed that males were more likely to
meet violence with violence, and females were more likely to be victimized. Ness (2004)
suggested in her study that females, given the right cultural circumstances, could meet
violence with violence and not seek authority figures to whom to report. In this study,
females being found to be statistically more likely to report violence than males could be
viewed through the lens of the Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, and Reicher (2002) in-
group/out-group membership study. Females of this study reported a greater willingness
to report than males, which might be a norm of the social categorization of being female.
This finding may or may not be unique to this study, and future research specifically
designed to gather data on willingness to report violence by gender of student might
reveal a generalizable perspective on gender and willingness to report.

80
Furthermore, participants indicated that they were more likely to report school
violence committed by perpetrators of different ethnicities than their own compared to
their overall willingness to report acts of violence. Asian American students were
statistically significantly more likely to indicate a willingness to report violent acts than
participants who self-identified as White, Hispanic, African-American, or other. That
African American and Latino students self-reported less willingness to report violence
supports the meta-analysis of Watts and Erevelles (2004) which suggests that a narrowly
codified school climate may marginalize African-American and Latino male students and
engender feelings of vulnerability, not to be overcome by a positive school climate.
Watts and Erevelles suggest that school norms of behavior and academic accountability
further marginalize the already marginalized populations of African-American and Latino
male students. In their meta-analysis of previous studies of school suspension data and
special education identification and viewed from the theoretical framework of Critical
Race Theory and Disability Studies, African-American and Latino male student
subgroups are overrepresented as high-risk students for both discipline problems and
special needs. They suggest that school norms work to exclude them, and a school’s
attempt to inculcate African-American and Latino male students only expands the gulf
between following the school’s norms for a successful education and accepting failure as
a predetermined outcome for the lower expectations of the students by school officials.
Students from School 1, situated in the less violent area of the city, reported that
they would be more likely to report violence at school than the students of School 2,
situated in a more violent geographic area. These findings were previously discussed and

81
extend the research that a positive school climate helps students avoid perceived violent
or dangerous situations, and that lower levels of violence increase willingness to report
(Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001; Errante, 1997; Jipguep & Sanders, 2003;
Welsh, 2000).
Knowledge of Available Resources and Willingness to Report
The findings of this study suggest a student knowing where and to whom to report
crimes statistically significantly predicted higher likelihood to report violence. These data
extend the findings of previous research. According to Welsh (2000) and Furlong et al.
(2005) students need clear avenues of reporting and school adults to whom to report, thus
creating a positive school climate. A positive school climate fostered by a school
structure supported and maintained by trusted adults helps students avoid perceived
violent or dangerous situations, victimization, threats to safety, offending behaviors, and
misconduct. Additionally, trusted adults model and practice respect for students, show
clear planning and action, and implement fairness and clarity of rules, and these variables
significantly predict lower levels of victimization. According to Welsh (2000) avoidance
of violence or violent behavior was significantly predicted by respect for students and
clarity of rules, with clarity of rules being the strongest predictor. Stanton-Salazar’s
research on social capital (1997) suggests that a positive school climate, one of
connectedness, requires trusted adults. Furthermore, trusted adults are viewed as a
foundation of school-site specific social capital, which need to be explicitly and clearly
utilized (Gladden, 2002; Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2006). Berkowitz (2008, in press)
suggests that fear of retaliation (or additional victimization) may diminish if an indirect

82
option for intervention, such as safe zones for reporting, identified trusted adults, or a
reporting hotline, is available to the student. This suggests that clear avenues for
reporting and specific individuals to whom to report must be identified and made clear to
students. Also, to trust an adult means the adult will protect the anonymity of the
reporter.
Fear of Likelihood of Negative Consequences and Willingness to Report
The findings of this study suggest that lack of peer support for reporting violent
acts and fear of perpetrator retaliation were statistically significant negative predictors of
student willingness to report violent acts they witness, with lack of peer support being
comparatively a greater negative predictor of student willingness to report. Lack of peer
support, or in-group members’ failure to act creating unwillingness to report, adds to the
research of Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, and Reicher (2002). The findings about retaliation
extend those of Levine et al. and Philips and Cooney (2005) that suggest that the
witnessing party’s fear of retaliation for reporting affect bystander behavior, and that
non-intervention reduces the psychological cost and possible fear of retaliation
(Berkowitz, 2008, in press). Also, Latané and Darley’s (1970) study showed that the
increased number of interveners lessened the individual bystander’s inclination towards
intervention and possible subsequent retaliation for reporting. Students of this study
might have chosen not to report for fear of retaliation, a legitimate fear that they would
suffer negative consequences as a result of reporting. Berkowitz (2008, in press)
suggests that this retaliation may take the form of physical harm, but may also include
“emotional harm, retaliation, lack of support from superiors for attempting to intervene,

83
and negative reactions or comments from others” (p. 14). Additionally, if the level of
violence in community is heightened, as in the case of School 2, then fear of retaliation is
heightened and student willingness to report lessens, which is supported in the findings of
this study. Berkowitz further suggests that fear of retaliation may diminish if an indirect
option for intervention, such as safe zones for reporting, identified trusted adults, or a
reporting hotline, is available to the student. As cited earlier in this review, Latané and
Darley (1970) define this indirect intervention as “detour intervention.”
The findings of this study suggested that the students of the two study schools
thought that some students deserved to be beaten up, robbed, or physically harmed.
These findings are supported in the research of Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, and Reicher
(2002) in their study of social categorization theory and in-group/out-group membership.
The norms for behavior and willingness to report are set by the accepted norms of the
peer group. It is clear from this study that the student respondents of the sample group
believed that the victim of a violent act deserved the resultant violence. These findings
might also be viewed as support for the research on coping mechanisms as suggested in
the findings of previous research (Berkowitz, 2008, in press; Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, &
Ramirez, 2001; Errante, 1997; Rasmussen, Aber, & Bhana, 2004; Rosenthal & Wilson,
2008). To distance themselves from emotional and psychological distress, the student
respondents chose to support the statement that other students deserved to be victims.
This finding was found in both schools of the study, School 1 in the safer neighborhood
and School 2 in the less safe neighborhood. According to the research of Ceballo et al.
(2001), Errante (1997), Jipguep & Sanders (2003), and Welsh (2000), students cope with

84
the psychological distress of perceived violence, even if the statistical data of the level of
violence in the neighborhood or school do not predict a violent school or neighborhood
environment, as was the case in this study. Lastly, the findings of students who self-
reported that some students deserved to be victims (beaten up, robbed, or physically
harmed) may be interpreted from the research of Latané and Nida (1981) in their
codification of the psychological processes affecting bystander behavior: a) audience
inhibition, b) social influence, and c) diffusion of responsibility. Conjoined with the
previous research on in-group/out-group membership (Levine et al., 2002) and various
coping mechanisms (Ceballo et al., 2001; Errante, 1997; Jipguep & Sanders, 2003;
Welsh, 2000), the students distanced themselves from victims and perceived the victim as
deserving of his or her fate. The three psychological processes explain a distancing from
the act of violence committed on a fellow student, and additionally act as a coping
mechanism for personal safety.
These findings present many implications and suggest possible recommendations
for school sites similar to the ones of this study, and for school sites and school districts
in general. The following section considers two areas for recommendations: (a) clearer
avenues in school for reporting with designated responsible adults, and (b) training and
use in classroom cooperative learning models across the curriculum.
Recommendations
Events such as those at Columbine and Santana High Schools continue to happen
and make headlines. The outcast student, known by others, perhaps set apart by his or
the in-group’s choice, becomes disaffected, plans and takes devastating action. Based on

85
the findings of this study, it is clear that better reporting avenues need to be explicitly
created and disseminated, so students know where and to whom to report. Schools
receiving federal funds are required to have sexual harassment reporting coordinators.
Assistant principals are responsible for gathering and investigating charges of
harassment, hate-motivated incidents, and acts of bullying, yet the students of this study,
when presented with 11 choices (including not reporting) spread their answers over a
number of school adults. It can be inferred from their responses and lack of a
predominate choice for reporting that clearer avenues for reporting need to be established
in these two high schools.
Age, ethnicity, and gender correlated with varying levels of willingness to report.
Two responses clearly stood out and presented a disturbing conundrum: a) students
would be more willing to report if the victim was younger than the reporter, leaving same
aged and older victims to fend for themselves, and b) the large response indicating that
some students deserve to be victims. A second recommendation for the schools of this
study would be an increase in cooperative learning models across the curriculum, so
students have multiple opportunities to interact with students of different ethnicities and
genders. Complex Instruction, a cooperative learning model form the University of the
Pacific, focuses on equity and access in classroom participation. Although students of
these schools spend time apart from teachers and other adults on campus during nutrition,
lunch, and passing periods, better utilization of time in classes, with teacher planning in
cooperative grouping, might give students opportunities for learning about each other
without making prejudice reduction an object lesson. This cooperative learning may

86
produce larger in-groups or change the in-group social categorization, so students may
feel inclined to increase reporting behavior as in-group size expands.
Limitations of the Study
The design of the study presented a range of limitations. The major limitation to
this study was that it was correlational; therefore, no causal relationships could be
determined, as only experimental studies can assess causation. The researcher could only
determine that the independent and dependent variables were related, but could not
conclude that the dependent variables were a result of the independent variables. Other
limitations included consistency, social desirability, and self-selection biases.
The study was conducted utilizing a convenience sampling technique and might
not be generalizable to other urban schools. Due to the nature of generating a sample at
the individual schools, the researcher had to negotiate with teachers and a principal to
generate a sample. This internal selection by school staff might have generated a sample
that was more connected to school, sympathetic to the needs of others, and more willing
to report violence or violent acts at school, as they were chosen by school adults to
participate. Therefore, this limitation might have led to self-selection bias, which occurs
when students voluntarily assign themselves to a group. Moreover, students who have
participated or actively participate in violent and deviant behavior might have been
reluctant to answer a questionnaire about violent and deviant behavior, even with the
guarantee of anonymity. The reliability of the instrument used limited the validity of the
study. The study was also limited by the return rate for the population of each high
school and might not be reflective of the high school. Additionally, the selection of the

87
school was limited by availability and permission given by the local education
association (LEA) and the level of participation and cooperation of the study schools.
Implications for Future Research
Research into bystander behavior and student willingness to report violence needs
to continue. This study was quantitative, but future studies may employ qualitative or
mixed-methodology to drill deeper into the understandings, though processes, and
mitigating environmental, emotional, and psychological factors exerting influence on the
respondents. Noteworthy to this study and intriguing for future research would be to
develop methodology to try to capture why students would be more apt to report a violent
act committed if the victim was younger than the reporter, but be less inclined to report
an age peer victim, or disinclined to report if the victim were older.
Alarming from this study was the student response that some students deserve to
be beaten up, robbed, or in some way physically harmed. That response needs further
research in the area of social categorization theory, or in-group/out-group membership.
Additionally, research into understanding how schools can create a school-level in-group
that allows students the freedom to report should continue, if non-reporting is a form of
coping mechanism to protect themselves from psychological distress and an accepted
norm of the student’s chosen peer group. If a school or district cannot understand the
mentality of adolescents that believe others deserve to be victimized, then increasing
willingness to report will prove difficult, and creating a safe environment for all children
an impossible task.

88
This study found that students from these two high schools reported a lack of an
overall willingness to report violence they heard about or witnessed. Additional research
should be conducted about the type of violent act and student willingness to report. As
this study focused on generic violence and non-specified violent acts, and through that
focus scratched the surface of student willingness to report, it is suggested that
disaggregating violence into specific acts along a continuum from bullying and hazing to
physical violence with and without weapons may offer more insight into student
willingness to report based on student perception of type of crime and danger to self and
others posed by the violent act.
As for students differentiating between telling a friend or parents and reporting to
adult school staff members of witnessed violent acts, further research should be
conducted to understand student perceptions of the difference between telling someone of
the witnessing of a violent act or reporting the violent act to someone in authority. The
authority figure would be someone who would be able to take corrective measures to
stem the commission of future violent acts by the perpetrator or offer protection for the
victim and reporter. This research would be intended to ask respondents to make clear
distinctions about reporting versus telling and the ramifications each choice entails.
Lastly, future research should be conducted about reporting avenues available in
school for students to report. Some schools are more successful than others, based upon
levels of violence on campus as measured by discipline referrals as well as suspension
and expulsion data. Do these successful schools plan and implement differently from
similar schools experiencing higher rates of negative discipline data? Are all students

89
aware of the school procedures for reporting, are there designated persons to whom to
report, and is student anonymity protected from retaliation? A comparative study of the
helping and hindering mechanisms to creating a safer learning environment that promotes
student welfare, fairness, and willingness to report would deepen the current body of
research and afford schools additional methods to fostering and maintaining safe
campuses.
Final Thoughts
As originally conceived, this study planned to examine students at schools in
neighborhoods that have high crime rates, higher than the schools examined. However,
being compelled by one district’s lack of approval for the project removed any nagging
preconceptions of the researcher. This allowed for a clean look at the variables in a
school and neighborhood and among friends and acquaintances about student willingness
to report violence. Bystander behavior, as previously cited, has been studied since the
early 1970’s (Berkowitz, 2008, in press; Latané & Darley, 1970; Latané & Nida, 1981;
Levine, Cassidy, Brazier, & Reicher, 2002; Zhong, 2009), but the attitudes of the
witnesses have only been measured indirectly. Why did the events at Columbine and
Santana High Schools happen if children knew they were being planned? What stopped
those children from finding trusted adults to whom to report, and what inhibits the
students of this study from being willing to report? Lastly, where do the messages come
from that have students believing that some students deserve to be victims? Extant
research into bystander behavior, willingness to report violence, and in-group
membership remains in its infancy. If school safety requires all stakeholders to actively

90
pursue the higher goals of the school, then more research needs to be conducted to
understand the helping and hindering mechanisms, both organizationally and
intrinsically, to student willingness to report violence.

91
REFERENCES
Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D. P., & Goesling, B. (2002). Student victimization:
National school system effects on school violence in 37 nations. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 829-853.

Alvy, H. B., & Robbins, P. (1998). If I only knew…success strategies for navigating the
principalship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Berkowitz, A. (2008, in press). “Response ability”: Transforming values into action by
fostering bystander interventions to promote health and social justice.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful
principals promote teaching and learning, 2
nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.

Brank, E. M., Woolard, J. L., Brown, V. E., Fondacaro, M., Luescher, J. L., Chinn, R. G.,
& Miller, S. A. (2007). Will they tell? Weapons reporting by middle-school
youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 125-146.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Reality and research in the ecology of human development.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 119(6), 439-469.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Ceballo, R., Dahl, T. C., Aretakis, M. T., & Ramirez, C. (2001). Inner-city children’s
exposure to community violence: How much do parents know? Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63(4), 927-940.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. The American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
CREP. (1989). Tennessee school climate survey. Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Retrieved from World Wide Web on March 27, 2009.
http://www.state.tn.us/education/learningsupport/schsafetyctr/index.shtml

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A
critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.

92
Errante, A. (1997). Close to home: Comparative perspectives on childhood and
community violence. American Journal of Education, 105(4), 355-400.
Felson, R. B., Liska, A. E., South, S. J., & McNulty, T. L. (1994). The subculture of
violence and delinquency: Individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces,
73(1), 155-173.

Fiore, D. J. (2006). School-community relations. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Furlong, M. J., Greif, J. L., Bates, M. P., Whipple, A. D., & Jimenez, T. C. (2005).
Development of the California school climate and safety survey-short form.
Psychology in the Schools, 42(2), 137-149.

Gladden, R. M. (2002). Reducing school violence: Strengthening student programs and
addressing the role of school organizations. Review of Research in Education, 26,
263-299.

Haberman, M. (1999). Star principals: Serving children in poverty. Indianapolis, IN:
Kappa Delta Pi.
Haberman, M., & Dill, V. S. (1995). Commitment to violence among teenagers in
poverty. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 31(4), 150.
Horowitz, R. (1987). Community tolerance of gang violence. Social Problems, 34(5),
437-450.
Jipguep, M., & Sanders-Phillips, K. (2003). The context of violence for children of
color: Violence in the community and in the media. Journal of Negro Education,
72(4), 379-395.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?
New York, New York: Meredith Corporation.
Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping.
Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308-324.
Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., & Reicher, S. (2002). Self-categorization and
bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32(7), 1452-1463.

Margolin, G., Vickerman, K. A., Ramos, M. C., Serrano, S. D., Gordis, E. B., Iturralde,
E., Oliver, P. H., & Spies, L. A. (2009). Youth exposed to violence: Stability, co-
occurrence, and context. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 12, 39-
54.

93
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2005), Research in education: Evidence based
inquiry. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Ness, C. D. (2004). Why girls fight: Female youth violence in the inner city. Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595, 32-48.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Glossary. U.S. Department of
Education: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from the World Wide Web
on May 17, 2009. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/s.asp.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004). Socioeconomic status. North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from the World Wide Web
on May 17, 2009.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/earlycld/ea7lk5.htm.

Phillips, S., & Cooney, M. (2005). Aiding peace, abetting violence: Third parties and the
management of conflict. American Sociological Review, 70, 334-354.
Ramsey, R. D. (2006). Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Rasmussen, A., Aber, M. S., & Bhana, A. (2004). Adolescent coping and neighborhood
violence: Perceptions, exposure, and urban youths’ efforts to deal with danger.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1/2), 61-75.

Rosenthal, B. S., & Wilson, W. C. (2008). Community violence and psychological
distress: The protective effects of emotional social support and sense of personal
control among older adolescents. Adolescence, 43(172), 693-712.

Scarnati, J. T. (1994). Beyond technical competence: Nine rules for administrators.
NASSP Bulletin, 76, 478-561.
Search Institute. (2009). The survey of student resources and assets. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web on March 27, 2009.
http://www.search-institute.org/survey-services/surveys/survey-student-resources
-and-assets.
Shelton, A. J., Owens, E. W., & Song, H. (2009). An examination of public school safety
measures across geographic settings. Journal of School Health, 79(1), 24-29.
Spano, R., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Bolland, J. (2008, in press). Does parenting mediate the
effects of exposure to violence and violent behavior? An ecological-transactional
model of community violence, 1-19.

94
SpotCrime. (2010). SpotCrime: The most comprehensive online source of crime
information. Retrieved from World Wide Web on April 15, 2010.
http://spotcrime.com/ca/torrance.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67(1), 1-40.

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Empowering relations of support between students and
school personnel. Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support
networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sutter, J. D. (2009). Columbine massacre changed school security. Retrieved from the
World Wide Web on August 9, 2009.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/04/20/columbine.school.safety/index.html

Thompkins, D. E. (2000). School violence: Gangs and a culture of fear. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 54-71.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Student trust in the principal. Retrieved from the World
Wide Web on March 27, 2009.
http://wmpeople.wm.edu/site/page/mxtsch/researchtools.
TUSD. (2010). School accountability report card. Retrieved from World Wide Web on
April 17, 2010.
http://www.tusd.org/Schools/SchoolReports/tabid/450/Default.aspx.

Watts, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school
violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 271-299.

Welsh, W. N. (2000). The effects of school climate on school disorder. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 88-107.
Wright, D. R., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2006). Social capital and adolescent violent
behavior: Correlates of fighting and weapon use among secondary school
students. Social Forces, 84(3), 1435-1453.

Zhong, L. Y. (2009) Bystander intervention and fear of crime: Evidence from two
Chinese communities. International Journal of Official Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, X(X), 1-14.

95
APPPENDIX A
BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR SURVEY
1. Student Information Cover Sheet
Thank you for choosing to participate in this survey. Your identity will be
protected and not be revealed. Every completed survey will generate a donation to your
school’s student body fund. The results of this survey will assist in understanding your
concerns and needs about school and community safety.
If in completing the survey you read a question you do not wish to answer, you
may skip the question and move on to the next question.
Thank you again for your cooperation and participation.
2. Student Background Information
1. What is the zip code of your home address? _____
2. How old are you? 14__ 15__ 16__ 17__ 18__ 19__
3. Are you male or female? Male__ Female__
4. What is you ethnic background? (Choose the ethnicity you most closely
identify with.)
Hispanic__ African-American__ Asian-American__ White__
Other__

96
3. Community Characteristics
This section addresses your perception of how safe you feel your neighborhood is.
1. Rate the following statement: My neighborhood is very safe.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
2. Rate the following statement: There are places near my home or apartment that
I would not go to alone.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
3. On a scale from very safe to very unsafe, how safe do you feel walking in your
neighborhood
a) when you are alone?
Very safe__ Safe__ Neither safe or unsafe__ Unsafe__
Very unsafe__
b) when you are with friends?
Very safe__ Safe__ Neither safe or unsafe__ Unsafe__
Very unsafe__
c) when you are with adults?
Very safe__ Safe__ Neither safe or unsafe__ Unsafe__
Very unsafe__

97
d) when police cars are nearby?
Very safe__ Safe__ Neither safe or unsafe__ Unsafe__
Very unsafe__
e) when police helicopters are flying around?
Very safe__ Safe__ Neither safe or unsafe__ Unsafe__
Very unsafe__
4. Have you ever seen someone get physically assaulted or worse in your
neighborhood?
Yes__ No__
5. Have you ever reported a crime to the police that you saw happen in your
neighborhood?
Yes__ No__
6. Rate the following statement: If I knew I would not have to be involved or
called in as a witness, I would call the police to report a crime in my
neighborhood.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
4. School Climate
This section focuses on how caring and safe your school, staff, and students are.
1. Rate the following statement: My school is generally a safe place to be.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__

98
2. In my high school
a) there are clear rules about what I can and cannot do.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
b) if I break a rule, I’m sure to get in trouble.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
c) I feel safe and comfortable with the staff and students.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
d) the staff, students, and the principal are aware of ways to resolve problems and
conflicts about violent acts.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
e) I know who to talk to to report a potential problem, violent act, or violence.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
f) the principal is there for students.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__

99
g) the principal does the right thing.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
h) the principal treats students with respect.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
3. If I have a problem at school the person I would most likely report to is (pick
no more than three).
Friend__ Parent__ Teacher__ Counselor__ Dean__
Assistant Principal__ Principal__ School Police__
Campus Security__
Other school employee (custodian, cafeteria worker, secretary, etc.)__
I would not report__
Why did you select the people you would report to? (Or why did you
choose you would not report?)*
*free response box
4. Rate the following statement: If I heard about or saw a violent act being
committed at school I would report it to a school adult staff member.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__

100
5. Rate the following statement: If I was part of a group that heard about or saw a
violent act being committed at school I would report it to a school adult staff
member.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
6. I know where to report if I hear about or see a violent act being committed at
school.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
7. The school has made it clear about who at school I should report to if I hear
about or see a violent act being committed at school.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__
5. Bystander Relationship to Victim/Perpetrator
This section is about your willingness to report a violent act if you know the victim, and
your willingness to report a violent act if you know the perpetrator. This section also
surveys your willingness to report a violent act if you don’t know either the victim or the
perpetrator.
1. Rate the following statement: I believe that some students deserve to be beaten
up, robbed, or in some way physically harmed.
Strongly agree__ Agree__ Neither agree or disagree__
Disagree__ Strongly disagree__

101
2. Thinking about YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE VICTIM: If you heard
about or saw a violent act being committed, how likely would you report it if the
victim were
a) someone you know.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
b) someone you don’t know.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
c) someone you like.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
d) someone you don’t like.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__

102
e) a boy.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
f) a girl.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
g) an ethnicity other than your own.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
h) younger than you are.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
i) the same age as you are.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__

103
j) older than you are.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
2. Thinking about YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PERSON COMMITTING
A VIOLENT ACT: If you heard about or saw a violent act being committed, how
likely would you report it if the person committing the violent act were
a) someone you know.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
b) someone you don’t know.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
c) someone you like.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__

104
d) someone you don’t like.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
e) a boy.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
f) a girl.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
g) an ethnicity other than your own.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
h) younger than you are.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__

105
i) the same age as you are.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
j) older than you are.
Definitely report__ Might report__
Neither report nor not report__ Probably would not report__
Definitely not report__
6. Reporting Consequences
This section is about your perception of the outcome of your reporting.
1. On a scale from very likely to very unlikely, how likely are you to report a
violent act you heard about or witnessed if
a) you think that your friends are against it?
Very likely__ Likely__ Neither likely nor unlikely__ Unlikely__
Very unlikely__
b) you think that the perpetrator or his/her friends will do something bad to you?
Very likely__ Likely__ Neither likely nor unlikely__ Unlikely__
Very unlikely__

106
2. Overall, if you heard about or witness a violent act at school, how likely would
you be to report it to a school adult staff member?
Very likely__ Likely__ Neither likely nor unlikely__ Unlikely__
Very unlikely__
Why did you select the answer you chose for overall reporting?*
*free response box

107
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH: PARENTAL
PERMISSION
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION

Student Willingness to Report Violence in Secondary Schools
Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by William B. Lupejkis,
BA, MFA, MS, Ed.D. candidate, Principal Investigator, and Helena Seli, Ph.D., faculty
advisor, from the University of Southern California because your child is a high school
student between the ages of 14 and 17. Your child’s participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand before deciding whether to allow your child to participate. Please take as
much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also be asked his/her
permission and given a form to read, which is called an assent form. Your child can
decline to participate, even if you agree to allow him/her. You and/or your child may also
decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If your child decides to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form, and your child will be asked to sign the assent form. You
will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will assess student attitudes, expectations, and knowledge toward reporting
violence, as well as factors that promote or inhibit reporting.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to allow your child to participate, your child will be asked to take a 30-
minute survey consisting of 52 questions about your neighborhood, his/her school, and
his/her friends and acquaintances. Your child will be asked to respond to questions about
levels of violence in your neighborhood, how supportive the school and the principal are,
and how much influence your child and his/her friends have on your child’s decision-

108
making when it comes to reporting violence on campus. If you would like a copy of the
questions asked of your child, please contact the researcher. The contact information is at
the end of this form.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks in your child’s participation in this study. Your child may
feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions. Your child does not have to answer
any questions s/he does not want to.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no anticipated direct benefits to your child. However, adding to the research on
violence and reporting behaviors can assist schools increase reporting behaviors, and
through that engender a safer learning environment for students.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will be disclosed only
with your permission or as required by law.
Neither you nor your child’s teachers will have access to your child’s responses.
Your child’s responses will not contain any identifiers, such as your child’s name, student
ID number or the name of the school.
The data will be stored with the Principal Investigator as a typed document and in
electronic format for a maximum of 5 years at the end of the study. Again, the answers
obtained in the survey will not identify your child.
Only members of the research team will have access to the surveys and data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be included.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child’s participation is voluntary. Your child’s refusal to participate will involve no
penalty or loss of benefits to which your child is otherwise entitled. You may withdraw
your consent, and your child may withdraw his/her assent, at any time and discontinue
participation without penalty. You, or your child, are not waiving any legal claims, rights
or remedies because of your child’s participation in this research study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The survey will be administered during the first portion of your child’s English class. If
you or your child has chosen not to participate, then your child will read quietly or
complete another assignment, such as a homework assignment, during this time. Your
child’s grades will not be affected, whether or not your child participates in this research
study.

109
INVESTIGATORS CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact William B.
Lupejkis, Principal Investigator at (323) 846-7645 or be email at lupejkis@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions, concerns, complaints about the research and are unable to contact the research
team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact
the University Park IRB (UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement,
Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)

I/we have read the information provided above. I/we have been given a chance to ask
questions. My/our questions have been answered to my/our satisfaction, and I/we agree
to participate in this study and/or have our child(ren) participate in this study. I/we have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Name of Parent

Signature of Parent Date

110

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s), and answered all of
their questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the information described in this
document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

111
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH: ADULTS 18 OR
OLDER
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
ADULTS AGED 18 OR OLDER

Student Willingness to Report Violence in Secondary Schools
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by William B. Lupejkis, BA,
MFA, MS, Ed.D. candidate, Principal Investigator, and Helena Seli, Ph.D., faculty
advisor, at the University of Southern California, because you are a high school student
aged 18 or older. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below,
and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read this form. You may also decide
to discuss it with your family or friends. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to
sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will assess your attitudes, expectations, and knowledge toward reporting
violence, as well as factors that help or keep you from reporting.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take a 30-minute survey
consisting of 52 questions about your neighborhood, your school, and your friends and
acquaintances. You will be asked to respond to questions about levels of violence in your
neighborhood, how supportive your school and the principal are, and how much influence
you and your friends have on your decision-making when it comes to reporting violence
on campus. The survey will either be conducted online or you will be given a paper
survey to complete.

112
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to you for participating. You may feel uncomfortable
answering some of the questions. You do not have to answer any question you do not
want to.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation. However, you may be adding to
the research on violence and reporting behaviors which can assist schools increase
reporting behaviors, and through that make a safer learning environment.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for participating in the research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
You will be asked not to place any identifiable information, such as your name or your
student ID number on the survey.
Your teachers will not have access to your responses.
Your responses and the signed documents will be stored with the Principal Investigator
for a maximum of 5 years at the end of the study and then will be destroyed.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be included.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in the study, you may
withdraw at any time without any consequences. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The survey will be administered during the first portion of your English class. If you
choose not to participate, then you can read quietly or do other class or homework during
the expected 30-minutes for the other students to complete the survey. Additionally,
there will be no penalty to you if you do not participate. Your classroom grade is not
connected with the survey and will not be affected by not participating.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact If
you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact William B.
Lupejkis, Principal Investigator at (323) 846-7645 or be email at lupejkis@usc.edu.

113
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park IRB
(UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room
224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

114
APPENDIX D
ASSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH FOR YOUTH (AGES 12 – 17)
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

ASSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FOR YOUTH (AGES 12-17)

Student Willingness to Report Violence in Secondary Schools
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by William B. Lupejkis, BA,
MFA, MS, Ed.D. candidate, Principal Investigator, and Helena Seli, Ph.D., faculty
advisor, at the University of Southern California, because you are a high school student
between the ages of 14 and 17. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether to participate. Your parent’s permission will be sought; however, the
final decision is yours. Even if your parents agree to your participation by signing a
separate consent document, you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to. Please take
as much time as you need to read this form. You may also decide to discuss it with your
family or friends. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will
be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will assess your attitudes, expectations, and knowledge toward reporting
violence, as well as factors that help or keep you from reporting.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to take a 30-minute survey
consisting of 52 questions about your neighborhood, your school, and your friends and
acquaintances. You will be asked to respond to questions about levels of violence in your
neighborhood, how supportive your school and the principal are, and how much influence
you and your friends have on your decision-making when it comes to reporting violence
on campus. The survey will be a paper survey to complete.

115
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to you for participating. You may feel uncomfortable
answering some of the questions. You do not have to answer any question you do not
want to.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation. However, you may be adding to
the research on violence and reporting behaviors, which can assist schools increase
reporting behaviors, and through that make a safer learning environment.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for participating in the research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
You will be asked not to place any identifiable information, such as your name or your
student ID number on the survey.
Your parents or teachers will not have access to your responses.
Your responses and the signed documents will be stored with the Principal Investigator
for a maximum of 5 years at the end of the study and then will be destroyed.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be included.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in the study, you may
withdraw at any time without any consequences. You may also refuse to answer any
questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The survey will be administered during the first portion of your English class. If you
choose not to participate, then you can read quietly or do other class or homework during
the expected 30-minutes for the other students to complete the survey. Additionally,
there will be no penalty to you if you do not participate. Your classroom grade is not
connected with the survey and will not be affected by not participating.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact William B.
Lupejkis, Principal Investigator at (323) 846-7645 or be email at lupejkis@usc.edu.

116
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant
you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have
questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to
talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park IRB
(UPIRB), Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room
224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions.
My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this
study. I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

117
APPENDIX E
PARENT INFORMATION LETTER
Dear Parent or Guardian:
I am conducting a research study at your child’s school and would like to obtain
your permission to allow your child participate in the study. This study is for the
purposes of a doctoral degree from the University of Southern California. The study is in
no way affiliated with my role as an Assistant Principal. As part of my study, I am
conducting a survey that may help educators understand why, when, and to whom your
child would report violence that occurs on campus. Up to 300 students enrolled in a 9
th

through 12
th
grade English class will be invited to participate in this study. Your child
was selected as a possible participant because he/she is a student enrolled in an English
class in the school. Your child’s participation is voluntary. Your child will not be graded
on his/her participation.
If you agree to allow your child to participate, and your child also agrees to
participate, your child will be asked to complete a 30-minute survey consisting of 52
questions about his/her neighborhood, school, friends and acquaintances. Your child will
be asked to respond to questions about levels of violence in his/her neighborhood, how
supportive the school and the principal are, and how much influence your child and
his/her friends have on his/her decision-making when it comes to reporting violence on
campus. One survey item, for example, asks your child to rate his/her answer to “my
school is generally a safe place to be” and another “how likely are you to report if you
heard about or witnessed a violent act at school” on a scale of one to five. In terms of

118
neighborhood safety and violence, one survey item asks your child to rate his/her answer
to “there are places near my home or apartment that I would not go to alone.” Finally,
this study will be looking at demographic data (age, gender and ethnicity) that will be
obtained through your child’s responses to direct questions in the survey. Responses will
be held in the strictest professional confidence. Neither you nor your child’s teachers
will have access to the responses. If you would like copies of the questions asked of your
child, feel free to contact the researcher. Your child’s teacher will not be in the room
when the survey is administered. If you choose not to allow you child to participate in
the survey, or your child does not want to participate, your child will be asked to read
quietly or work on class or homework while others complete the survey.
If you are willing to allow your child to participate in this study, your written
permission is required on the parent informed consent form. The consent forms will be
available during the parent meeting and/or your child will bring one home. Once you
receive the parent consent form, please read it over carefully and sign the last page of the
form if you are willing to allow your child to participate. Have it returned by your child
to his/her class, where your child will place it in the envelope I am leaving. I will pick up
the envelope a week or two from today. If your child is aged 18 or older, your
permission is not required.

119
If there are any questions regarding this study, please contact me at 323-846-7645
or by email at lupejkis@usc.edu.
Thank you,
William B. Lupejkis

120
APPENDIX F
RECRUITMENT SPEECH
I would like to invite you to participate in a research study I am conducting as part
of my doctoral degree from the University of Southern California. I am conducting a
survey that may help educators understand why, when, and to whom you would report
violence that occurs on campus. Up to 300 students from two high schools enrolled in a
9
th
through 12
th
grade English class will be eligible to participate in this study. You were
selected as a possible participant because you are a student enrolled in an English class.
Your participation is voluntary.
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 30-minute survey
consisting of 51 questions about your neighborhood, your school, and your friends and
acquaintances. You will be asked to respond to questions about levels of violence in your
neighborhood, how supportive your school and the principal are, and how much influence
you and your friends have on your decision-making when it comes to reporting violence
on campus. One survey item, for example, asks you to rate your answer to “my school is
generally a safe place to be” and another “how likely are you to report if you heard about
or witnessed a violent act at school” on a scale of one to five. In terms of neighborhood
safety and violence, one survey item asks you to rate your answer to “there are places
near my home or apartment that I would not go to alone.” Finally, this study will be
looking at demographic data (age, gender and ethnicity) that will be obtained through
your responses to direct questions in the survey. Responses will be held in the strictest
professional confidence. Your parents or teachers will not have access to your responses

121
on the survey and your grades will not be affected. Your teachers will not be in the room
when the survey is administered. If you choose not to participate in the survey, you will
be asked to read quietly or work on class or homework while others complete the survey.
If you are willing to participate in this study, written permission from you and
your parents is required. Your parents will be asked to read and sign the Informed
Consent Form for Parents and you will be asked to sign the Youth Assent Form. Please
carefully read the Assent Form, and if you have any questions, contact me. If your
parents allow you to participate please have your parents sign the parental form. You will
be asked to sign the Assent Form just before you complete the survey. The Parental
Permission Forms should be returned to your class and placed in an envelope left there I
will pick up the envelope a week from today.
If you are aged 18 or older, your parents’ permission is not required and you will
be asked to read and sign an Informed Consent Form, rather than an Assent Form.
Are there any questions regarding this study or anything I have said? Thank you.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 323-846-7645 or by email at
lupejkis@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined personal and environmental influences that previous research suggested affect violence and violence reporting for secondary students. This study assessed student attitudes, expectations, and factual knowledge toward reporting violence, as well as factors that promoted or inhibited reporting. The findings are intended to broaden understanding of bystander behavior and examine the relations among varying community levels of violence, school climate, age, gender, ethnicity of students, and the influence of these factors on student willingness to report violence.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

Physical aggression in higher education: student-athletes’ perceptions and reporting behaviors

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

The effects of peer helping on participants' perceptions of school climate, school connectedness, and school violence

PDF

A study of a university-based men-only prevention program (Men CARE): effect on attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence

PDF

The perceptions of cross cultural student violence in an urban school setting

PDF

Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations

PDF

Bystander behavior in relation to violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered high school students

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

Do no harm: an evaluation study of providing culturally competent services to African American women who are victims of domestic violence

PDF

An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school

PDF

School social dynamics as mediators of students personal traits and family factors on the perpetration of school violence in Taiwan

PDF

Bystander intervention training & the culture of sexual assault on college campuses

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

Strategies of academically successful Latinas who experienced family violence as children

PDF

Secondary school violence and Hawai’i’s mahu population

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

A study of Pacific Islander scholarship football players and their institutional experience in higher education

PDF

Healthy relationship education using applied academics: a solution to decreasing teen dating violence among high school students

Asset Metadata

Creator Lupejkis, William Bennett (author)

Core Title Student willingness to report violence in secondary schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/02/2010

Defense Date 06/23/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag bystander behavior,in-group/out-group membership,OAI-PMH Harvest,peer group affiliation,school climate,school safety,social capital,social categorization,supportive principal,trusted adults,violence reporting

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Love, Laurie (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email benlupejkis@ca.rr.com,lupejkis@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3249

Unique identifier UC1242116

Identifier etd-Lupejkis-3914 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-336539 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3249 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lupejkis-3914.pdf

Dmrecord 336539

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lupejkis, William Bennett

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu