Consequences for Adolescent Victims of Aggressive Behaviour: Perceptions of Teachers with Varying Levels of Aggressiveness

Background. Teachers’ perceptions of adolescents who engage in aggressive behaviour provide a valuable context for understanding the areas where we can develop comprehensive and effective prevention strategies for aggression in educational settings. Objective. The aim of the study is to investigate the differences in the levels of aggression among teachers in relation to their beliefs about the consequences of adolescent involvement in aggressive situations as victims. Study Participants. The sample consists of 5,086 teachers from 7 different regions of the Russian Federation (94% are female, with the average age of 44.6 years (SD = 13.6)). Methods. To investigate the specific aspects of teachers’ perceptions of students’ deviating behaviour, a standardized survey was developed by A.A. Rean’s research team. This article analyzes the responses to the question “What do you think could be the consequences of being a victim of aggression for a teenager?” (7 statements, multiple-choice). Indicators of teacher aggressiveness were assessed using the Buss — Perry Aggression Questionnaire (adapted by S.N. Enikolopov and N.P. Tsibulsky), the differences were evaluated using the t-test. To ensure the stability of the results, the procedure was carried out through multiple repetition (100 times) with equaling the samples. Results. According to the data obtained, teachers mostly evaluate the consequences of aggression towards teenage victims negatively. However, every fifth teacher also sees involvement in aggression as potential for victim development. It has been established that teachers who disagree with statements about the negative consequences of aggression (auto-aggression, communication difficulties, school failure, and risk of a negative life trajectory) are more likely to be prone to physical aggression. Significant differences were also found in the scales of “physical aggression” and “hostility” when choosing the category of “psychological difficulties”. Educators who are prone to anger have a different pattern when considering the consequences of engaging in aggression: choosing one consequence or another is linked to a higher level of anger. Conclusion. The results obtained support the thesis regarding the need to enhance the skills of teachers in preventing destructive behaviour among students, including reducing pedagogical aggression, addressing the risks of normalized adolescent aggression, and supporting the implementation of interventions in difficult situations.