Bullying, Cheating, Deceiving: Teachers’ Perception of Deceitful Situations at School
https://doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2013.24
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
Two studies investigated in which situations teachers (would) investigate whether a student was lying or telling the truth and how these situations were perceived. Results of Study 1 indicate that teachers (would) interview students when it comes to use of unfair means, aggressive behavior, theft, absence without permission, bullying, and vandalism, whereat deceitful situations with rather light consequences were most frequently described. Moreover, participants perceived the frequency of occurrence of all situations as lower for themselves compared to colleagues. In both studies, the use of unfair means, absence without permission, and bullying (over a longer period) were rated as most frequently occurring in everyday school life. Further, deception detection was perceived as being mostly important in situations with severe consequences. Study 2 also demonstrates that situations with light consequences are perceived as situations where it is of relatively less importance to make accurate judgments, avoid wrongful accusation, and detect misbehavior, as compared with situations with severe consequences. Overall, teachers perceive avoiding wrong accusation as more important than detecting misbehavior. Influences of teachers’ perceptions on their behavior are discussed.
Downloads
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D. & Akert, R. M. (2008). Sozialpsychologie [Social Psychology] (4th Edition). München: Pearson.
Google Scholar CrossrefAjzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
Google Scholar CrossrefBaier, D., Pfeiffer, C., Simonson, J., & Rabold, S. (2009). Jugendliche in Deutschland als Opfer und Täter von Gewalt: Erster Forschungsbericht zum gemeinsamen Forschungsprojekt des Bundesministeriums des Innern und des KFN (KFN Forschungsbericht Nr. 107) [German adolescents as victims and actors of violence: First research report of the corporate research project of the Ministry of the Interior and the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony]. Hannover: Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen.
Google Scholar CrossrefChaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefChen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefCozby, P. C. (2009). Methods of behavioural research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Google Scholar CrossrefFranklyn-Stokes, A., Newstead, S. E. (1995). Undergraduate Cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education, 20, 159-172. doi:10.1080/03075079512331381673
Google Scholar CrossrefGebauer, K. (2009). Mobbing in der Schule [Bullying in school]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Google Scholar CrossrefHuisken, F. (2007). Über die Unregierbarkeit des Schulvolks: Rütli-Schulen, Erfurt usw. [On the ungovernability of schools: Rütli-Schools, Erfurt etc.]. Hamburg: VSA-Verlag.
Google Scholar CrossrefKassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2011). Social Psychology, 8th Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing. .
Google Scholar CrossrefKunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
Google Scholar CrossrefKunda, Z. (1999). Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefLerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental decision. New York: Plenum.
Google Scholar CrossrefMcAllister, H. A. (1996). Self-serving bias in the classroom: Who shows it? Who knows it? Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 123-131.
Google Scholar CrossrefReinhard, M.-A., Dickhäuser, O., Marksteiner, T., & Sporer, S. L. (2011). The case of Pinocchio: Teachers' ability to detect deception. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 299-318.
Google Scholar CrossrefReinhard, M.-A., Marksteiner, T. & Dickhäuser, O. (2011). [Perceived seriousness of different types of errors in lie detection]. Unpublished data.
Google Scholar CrossrefRigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583-90.
Google Scholar CrossrefShrum, L. J., & O’Guinn, T. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436-471.
Google Scholar CrossrefTiefenbacher, A. (2008). Mobbing [Bullying]. München: Compact Verlag.
Google Scholar CrossrefTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
Google Scholar CrossrefVrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Google Scholar CrossrefWawrzitz, N. (2011). Neue Medien und Gewalt an Schulen [New media and violence in schools]. München: Grin.
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.