European Journal of Psychology of Education2006. Vul. XXI, n"2. 209-228

6, LS.P.A.

An extention of the school moral atmosphereconstruct, and its association with aggressivebehaviours in secondary school

Tiziana ManciniLaura FruggeriChiara Panari

Department of Psychology. University of Parma, Italy

The first aim of this research is to introduce and to validate thenew concept of School Normative Context, that revisits the concept ofSchool Mora! Atmosphere studied by Brugman and his colleaguesthrough the SMAQ (1999) and validated also in the Italian context(Mancini & Fruggeri, 2005). The School Normative Context entails twonew aspects: The first one concerns the interactive dimension of eachspecific school context and the second one concerns the perception ofresponsibility (internal vs. external) in the implementation of the norm.The second aim is to study the relation among adolescents' perceptionof School Normative Context, adolescents ' orientation towards socialrules and their aggressive behaviours against classmates at school. 268students (mean age 17,01) attending three Italian high schools of threedifferent educational levels (Lyceum, technical and professional)participated in this research. They filled a questionnaire composed ofthree parts: School Normative Context Questionnaire (SNC),Normative Orientation Scale (NOS) and Aggression Seale (Orpinas.Frankowski. 2001). School Normative Context has shown anacceptable degree of conceptual and predictive validit}'. The researchhas shown that the School Normative Context has an infiuence on theaggressive behaviours against classmates. Furthermore, it is amediating factor between the adolescents' orientation towards socialnorms and their aggressive behaviours at school.

Introduction

The acquisition of moral principles is one of the most important task adolescents have tocope with in order to develop a system of norms and values that regulates their behaviours.The school context plays an important roie iti this process: As Emler (1990), and Emier andReicher (1995) pointed out, the school context is the first institution which students get in

210 T. MANCINI. L. FRUGGERI. & C. PANARl

contact with and has a fundamental role in the acquisition and intemalization of social normsthat regulate the behaviours enacted by adolescents both at sehool (Mancini, 1999, 2002;Mancini, Fruggeri., & Foa. 2003), and outside school. Moreover the effect of school socialenvironment on the individual's behaviours is particularly strong during adolescence, becauseof the importance that aeceptanee by the peer group plays at this age (Eccles et al., 1993;Hartup, 1996). The relation between the moral reasoning and the moral conducts in thecontext of the secondary Italian school is the topie of this research. In order to study thisrelation three concepts have been operationalised in this research: the Moral Principles., theSchool Normative Conlexi, and the Moral Conducts (Figure 1). Moral Principles refer to theprocess of acquisition and intemalization of soeial norms through socialization processes.Social norms are generally considered as indicative of what is socially approved or disapproved;they tend to regulate the human behaviours. In this research Moral Principles are measured bythe adolescents' Orieniaiion lo Social Norms Scale. The School Normative Context refers tothe new concept introduced in the present researeh, that revisits the concept of School MoralAtmosphere studied by Brugman, Tavecchio. van Os, and Host through the SMAQ (1999).The School Normative Context is studied through the elaboration of the School NormativeContext Questionnaire. Finally the Moral Conducts have been operationalized through theAggressive Behaviours towards classmates that adolescents claim to have done and suffered atschool {Aggression and Victimization Scales).

To prove the validity of the School Normative Context concept and to analyse influenceof the adolescents' orientation toward social norms and of their perception of sehoolnormative context in the enactment of aggressive eonducts at school are the aims of this study.In line with previous studies (Host, Brugman, Tavecchio, & Beem, 1998; Brugman, Podolskij,Heymans, Boom, Karabanova, & Idoabeva, 2003; Mancini et al., 2003; Mancini & Fruggeri,2003) this research aims at analysing whether the adolescents" perception of school normativecontext is a mediating factor between the students* aequisition of moral principles and theirmoral conducts.

Concqits

Empirical indicators

Moral competence

Orientation tosocial norms scale

School normative context

School normativecontext questionnaire

Mediator

Moral conducts

A^ression andvictimization scale

Figure L Research constructs

The relation between moral principles and moral conducts in the psychological literature

In the psychological literature, the issue oi moral principles and their relation with moralconducts has been discussed by reference to several theoretical models.

From an individualistic perspective. Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1969) consider normsas moral principles internalized through different developmental stages; they hypothesize anassociation between adolescents' competence in moral reasoning and moral aetions.

Aecording to Bandura (1996), this association does not always occur. He identifies someself-regulatory psychological mechanisms by which moral self-sanctions are selectivelydisengaged.

A different interpretation of the disjunction between moral competence and moral actionsis given by the Reputation Management Theory (Emier & Reicher. 1995). This theory definesthe adolescents' eounter-normative behaviours as a result of a ehoice guided by thepreoccupation of managing., shaping or maintaining one's own reputation. Namely, thesebehaviours reflect the adolescents' relationship with the institutional authority. The scholasticexperience contributes to the shaping of the adolescents' attitudes toward the institutionalorder (Rubini & Palmonari. 1995). Furthermore, some studies (Mancini. 1999, 2002; Mancini

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRHSSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 211

et al., 2003) have found significant associations between the adolescents' attitude towardinformal scholastic rules and the enactment of aggressive behaviours against peers andteachers. The relevance that these rules have in a specific context could be one factormediating between the orientation toward social norms and individual behaviours. As arguedby the Emergent Norm Theory {Turner & Killian, 1972). aggressive behaviours are the resultof an adjustment to new norms that emerge in specific situations within the group. Thesenorms are approved and shared by all group participants. In contrast with the DeTndividuationTheory (Zimbardo, 1969), the Emergent Norm Theory hypothesizes that groups behave in amore aggressive way than individuals when this is eonsidered legitimate and appropriate byall partieipants. From this perspective, the concept of School Moral Atmosphere (Kohlberg1981; Power, 1985; Host et al., 1998; Brugman et al.. 1999) could be considered as a specificapplication of the Emergent Norm Theory applied to the sehool context.

Toward a re-elaboration of the School Moral Atmosphere Construe!

According to Brugman, Host, van Roosmalen, and Tavecchio (1994) and Brugman et al.(1999), the concept of School Moral Atmosphere is determined by ihe informal norms andvalues that regulate .social relation.ships within .schools and by the degree these norms andvalues are shared by the student.s. This concept was introduced by Kholberg (1981) and it wasapplied to the sehool context through the "Just Community" approach (Power Hieeins &Kohlberg, 1989)'. I F v eg

The concept of Sehool Moral Atmosphere has been translated into a questionnaire, calledthe School Moral Atmosphere Questionnaire (SMAQ - Host et al., 1998). Some researchesusing SMAQ (Brugman et al., 1994; Brugman et al.. 1999; Brugman & Boom, 2003;) havefound that the School Moral Atmosphere constitutes an important link between adolescents'eompetenee in moral reasoning and their actions. Moreover, in line with these results, also theItalian validation of SMAQ (Mancini & Fruggeri, 2003) reveals that this eoncept issignificantly correlated to adolescents' aggressive behaviours against classmates at school.

Even if the questionnaire has proved to be a good instrument for measuring moralatmosphere in different countries such as Netherlands (Host et al., 1998; Beem, Brugman,Host, & Taveechio, 2004). and Russia (Brugman & Boom, 2003; Brugman et al., 2003), theItalian validation of the questionnaire (Mancini & Fruggeri, 2003) shows that the eoncept of"moral atmosphere at school" needs some adjustments.

These adjustments eoncem two important aspects that are disregarded in SMAQ and thatare though closely conneeted to individuals' relationship with the norms of their own socialcontexts. The first is the interactive dimen.sion through which the shared informal norms andvalues regulating interpersonal relationships develop in each specific school context. Thesecond is the perception of respomibility (internal vs. external) in the implementation ofnorms.

As to the interactive dimensions through which the shared informal norms and valuesdevelop in each specific school context, some specific inputs derive from Paolicehi (1991)who claims that the relationship precedes the norm, and not vice versa. The norm emergesfrom the relationship and has characteristics that depend on the quality of the relationshipitself Hoffman (1977) hypothesises that the development of "a moral intemal motive" occurswhen partners in interaetion are more interested in a mutual attention instead of exercisingpower. Aceording to this author, the "moral intemal motive" has a cognitive dimension and acharacter of obligation and motivation, which are not based on the fear of punishment. Theseare the aspects that contribute to distinguish shared nonnative contexts from not-shared ones.In a shared normative context a system of social norms and values develops and everybodytries to observe it (Mancini et al., 2003). Also de Piccoli, Favretto, and Zaitron (2001) and DeLeo (1996) consider social norms as tools for describing relational structures. These toolsallow the explanation of one's own and other people's behaviours.

As these studies show, the interactive dimension is therefore pivotal for a fullunderstanding of the way norms are developed and shared in the Sehool Context. We can also

212 T, MANCINL L, FRUGGERI, & C. PANARi

suppose that the shared informal norms and values regulating interpersonal relationships atschool are the result of two kinds of relations. The first is the relation between classmates; thesecond is the relation between students and teaehers. In order to study this interactivedimensions, the level of norms sharing is considered both from the perspective of the majorityof students (like in the SMAQ) and from the perspective of the majority of teachers.

The second new aspect considered in the School Normative Context construct is theperception of responsibility in the implementation of the norms. The responsibility is a coreconcept in the understanding of the relationship that individuals establish with their own soeiaicontext (De Leo, 1996), and plays an important role in the regulation of individual behaviours(Zamperini, 1998).

The first social psychological studies about the sense of responsibility have eonneeted itto the concept of Causal Attribution (the attributions that individuals use to explain otherpeople's behaviours). These studies have focused on one of the facets of the responsibility,known as "imputation". Discussions on imputation have resulted in three differentinterpretations. The first concerns the general sense of responsibility as internal causality(Kelley, 1967). The second coneems the more specific sense of responsibility as a mental statethrough which the actor exereises free will (Heider. 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965). According tothe third interpretation, people are responsible only if they have mental capacity for acting in areasoned and deliberated way (Hart, 1968).

Even if the process of causal attribution is appropriate to understand the attribution ofresponsibility, these studies disregard that the responsibility is not necessarily determined by"causation" (Fineham & Jaspars, 1980). A different interpretation of responsibility is given byCaprara. Pastorelli, and Bandura (1995), who identify the mechanisms of the Diffusion ofResponsibility and of the Displaeement of the Responsibility as regulating factors ofaggressive behaviours.

In other studies, individuals" responsibility judgement has been considered subordinate tomoral judgement. However, Blasi (1980) draws a difference between these two types ofjudgements. According to this author, through moral judgements individuals consider theobjective value of the norm. On the contrary, the responsibility judgements concern one's ownpersonal relationship with the norm. In this respect, the responsibility judgments becomeprinciples for actions as long as the norm has a value for the subjects themselves (Paolicchi,1991). In this sense the responsibility involves the individual's self image.

Other studies have focused on another dimension of responsibility, known asaccountability. Accountability refers to the capacity of individuals to be reliable in front of anaudience, while performing eertain prescribed standards, thereby while fulfilling obligations,duties, social expectations and other charges (Zamperini, 1998). Schlenker, Britt. Pennington,Murphy, and Doherty (1994) have elaborated the Triangle Model of Responsibility. Such amodel connects the responsibility with three elements: the individual identity, the nonns andthe events. The individual identity is a set of self images that describes the actor's roles.qualities, convictions and aspirations. The norms or prescriptions are codes and rules forconduct. The events include both the units of actions and their consequences that are relevantfor the norms. From this point of view, the responsibility is "the adhesive that connect an actorto an event and to relevant prescriptions that should govern conduct, and thus it provides abasis for judgment and sanctioning" (Schlenker et al., 1994, p. 649). Therefore, theresponsibility is considered as a direct function of the combined strength of the connectionsamong these three elements. In this definition, the responsibility moves from abstractprinciples to the dimension of social relations. According to Arendt (1989) and Bauman(1999), the responsibility derives from the proximity with other people, and as such itbecomes an organizational principle of the relationships. Coherently with this perspective,Maggiolini and Riva (1999) demonstrated that less formal relationships between students andtheir teachers, help students in perceiving their sense of responsibility.

The above considerations underline that the adolescents" perception of their responsibilitytowards the seholastic rules must be considered as an important dimension of the concept ofSchool Normative Context.

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 213

The last adjustment that our re-elaboration of School Moral Atmosphere suggests refersto the distinction between two school context dimensions; the "school context as a whole" andthe "single class context". Such a distinction is considered in the original version of SMAQ,but not clearly operationalized.

Integrating these new dimensions, the study here presented proposes therefore a re-elaboration of the School Moral Atmosphere Concept through the introduction of a newconstruct; the School Normative Context. The terms of such a re-elaboration are synthesized inthe Figure 2.

2, Re-elaboration of school moral atmosphere concept into the school normativecontext

The construct of the School Normative Context is composed of two different dimensions.As indicated also in the SMAQ. the first dimension refers to the single class and the second tothe school as a whole. The "Single class" dimension is pointed out through the followingindicators: the Content of the Helping Norm and the Stage of Collective Norm, to which weadded the Perception of Responsibility. The Content of the Helping Norm measures to whatextent a social norm as "helping a classmate" is shared by students and teachers; the Stage of(collective) norm concerns the stage of moral reasoning of the majority of classmates. ThePerception of Responsibility refers to the assumption according to which classmates andteachers fee! responsible or not responsible for the scholastic rules. As we can see in Figure 2.students are asked to answer about the Content of the Norm and the Perception ofResponsibility both from the perspective of majority of classmates (like in the SMAQ) andfrom the perspective of majority of teachers.

The "School as a whole" dimension is pointed out through two indicators (see Methods):the Evaluation of the School as a Commtinity and the Evaluation of the School as anhhstitution. The Evaluation of School as a Community refers the students' perception of theirschool as a community where students and teachers care about each other. The Evaluation ofSchool as an Institution refers the functions that students' attribute to their school and includeboth rejection of school, instrumental-extrinsic valuations, and feelings of belonging andidentification with the school.

Taking into account the literature here presented, in this research we define the conceptof School Normative Context as the set of the mutual expectations of behaviours whichregulates the relations among the different social actors (students and teachers) at school,together with the level of sharing of such nonns, and the perception of responsibility of theirimplementation.

214 T. MANCINI, L. FRUGGERI. & C. PANARl

Methods

Aims and hypotheses

The present study has two aims.The first one is to examine the reliability and construct validity of the concept of the

Sehool Normative Context. The second is to analyse the influence of the adolescents'perception of school normative eontext prevalent in their school and in their class on theiraggressive behaviours against classmates.

As described above, the eoncept of School Normative Context that should be considered inthis research, is a re-elaboration of the Sehool Moral Atmosphere concept elaborated byBrugman and eolleagues (1999. 2003). In particular, this study aims at analysing some psyeho-metrie properties of the School Normative Context Questionnaire (SNCQ) in an Italian sample ofstudents who attend different kinds of high schools, in order to prove the effectiveness of thisconcept as one of the possible explicative factors for aggressive eonducts enacted or suffered bythe students at school. In this respect, main results conceming both the reliability of each 11scales that compose the School Normative Context Questionnaire, and construct validity of theSchool Normative Context will be shown. In order to analyse the construct validity, factorvalidity of the Sehool Normative Construct will be considered (Thompson & Daniel. 1996).

The second aim of this research is to verify the role played by the personal orientationtoward social norms and by the perception of school normative eontext in the enactment ofadolescents' aggressive conducts at school. In particular, in line with previous studies (Hest et al.,1998: Brugman et al.. 2003; Mancini et al., 2003; Maneini & Fruggeri, 2003) this research aimsat analysing whether the adolescents' perception of school normative context is a mediatingfactor between the students' aequisition of moral principles (operationalized by means of theadolescents' orientation towards the social norms) and their moral conducts (operationalizedthrough the aggressive behaviours towards classmates that adolescents elaim to have done andsuffered in the last seven days).

Participants

The sample is composed of 266 students [mean age 17.01; 134 male (50,4%) and 132female (49,6%)] attending the 10th (15 years) and the 12th (17 years) grsde of three kinds ofItalian high schools: (1) lyceum (five years high school with emphasis on classical studies,literature, science and mathematics), (2) technical schools (five years high sehool withemphasis on aecountancy, law, mathematics), and (3) professional (four years high schoolconceived to teach students specific jobs).

As shown in Table 1, the three kinds of sehool (lyceum, teehnieal and professional)represent respectively 37,2%, 37,2% and 25,6% of students. In each school the questionnairehas been administered in all the 10th and 12th grade classes, for a total of 9 10th grade classes(three for each schools) and 8 12th grade classes (three for lyceum and teehnieal and 2 forprofessional sehooi).

Table 1

Distribution of the sample by type of school, classes and students

Type of school 10th 12th JTot̂ %_

Lyceum 53 46 99 37.2Technical 61 38 99 37.2Professional 38 30 68 25.6Total 152 114 266 100.0

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 215

Instruments

In order to reach the above described aims, we have elaborated a questionnaire that iscomposed of three parts: The School Normative Context Questionnaire (SNCQ). theNormative Orientation Scale (NOS) and the Aggression Scale (AS). The three parts and therelated scales and indicators are synthesized in Table 2.

Table 2

Description of the study indicators: N, of items, alpha scores, means, standard deviations, andrange of scores (N. 266)

Parts of the questionnaire Seales N, item Alpha scores Range Mean Sd,

School Normative ContextQuestionnaire (SNCQ)

1. Single class normative context{standardized dilemma: "helping a classmate")a. Content of the helping nomial, Content of the helping norm: Classmatesa2. Content of the hetping norm: Teachers

b. Stage ofcoUeciive norm

c. Perception of responsibilityc\. Internal sen,sc of responsibility: Clcissmalesc2. Internal Sense ofRespontihility: Teachers2. School as a wholed. School as a communityd I, Noi negation of communityd2, Sen.-ie of community

c. School as an institutione I, Not rejection of the schoole2. Insti-umenial extrin.sic evaluation of the schoole^, EnthusiaUic identification with the schoole4. Positive .social relationsTOTAL SCORE

Normative Orientation Scale OJOS) n. Abstract moral competencef 2. Conventional moral competence

Aggression Scale (AS) ^]. Aggres.iiong2. Victimization

86

4

88

66

4444

11

54

1312

,69,48.43

,54,57

,64,73

.76,72,77,73,75

.K6,55

.88

.86

,03,08,00

,06,19

,04,00

.00,00,00,00

,22

2.15LKl

,00,00

1,00,70

1.00

,94.94

1,00,83

1.001,001,001,00,79

,42.44,51

,51,53

,45,35

,56,58,56,58,50

5.00 4.235,00 3,47

5,715.58

1,601.16

,17,13,27

,15,16

.18,18

,22.19,23,2!,10

,58,52

1,231,00

The School Normative Context Questionnaire (SNCQ) is a multiple choice instrumenteomposed of two seetions.

The first section measures the perception of the "Single class" dimension of the SchoolNormative Context, and it is composed of a dilemma (helping an unpopular classmate) thathas been standardized in previous qualitative and quantitative researches (Mancini et al.,2003), In this section participants are asked to express opinions about the positions that themajority of their classmates and the majority of their teachers would take regarding theschool-related issues contained in the dilemma. Furthermore, students are asked to expresstheir opinions about the responsibility that the majority of classmates and of teachers wouldfeel with respect to the episode described in the dilemma.

The dilemma says: Mark M- a hoy who is attending the (same class of participants),,. Since thebegmning of the school he has had a lot of difficulties in becoming part of his class-room. He'snot fond of his school-mate.s, who consider him a nasty bay and who often lease him. One dayJohn and Paul, his school-males, decide to play a trick on him. During the recreation, whileMark is going to buy a snack, they hide his homework while the other .school-mates areobsen-ing the entire episode. As .wan as Mark understands what has happened, he tries toexplain it to the teacher, but the teacher doesn 'I want to listen to his reasons and decides togive him a negative note.

216 T. MANCINI. L, FRUGGERi, & C. PANARI

Using the answers to questions related to the diletntiia presented, ihree eonstructs areoperazionaiised:

a) The Content of Helping Norm Scale measures to what extent, according to the students, the"helping" social norm is accepted by the majority of their classmates (i.e.. In your opinion,how many of your classmates would help Mark ta do his homework again?) and by themajority of their teachers (i,e,. In your opinion, haw many afyaur teachers would try tounderstand what has really happened di.tcussing it with the class?). The range of theanswers to the eight (classmates) and six (teachers) items goes from "most of them" to"nane of I hem" on a 3-poitits Likert Scale, with "someone" in the intermediate position.Following SMAO (Host et a!., 1998) instructions, two scores have been computed:

al) Content of the Helping Norm: Classmates

al) Content of the Helping Norm: Teachers

b) The Stage of Collective Norm Scale is assessed by a set of four items whieh represent fourdifferent reasons for "helping" an unpopular classmate. The question is to what extent eachreasoti is the one that most of participants' classmates would give (Yes, I really think so:Yes, maybe: No: / don'l know this reason). The set of the four reasons, taken from theSMAO. corresponds to the four stages of moral development:

Stage 1 Heteronymous moraUty (if you don't help Mark, the teacher might get angry. Is

this reason close to the one that mosl ofyaur classmates would give?)

Stage 2 Instrumetital exchange {If you needed some help and nobody helps you, you

wouldn 't like it either.)

Stage 3 Mutual interpersonal expectation and relationships [Mark is a student in your

class, and he's part of that class even if he's nasty,)

Stage 4 Social system and conscience (If classmates don't help each other, it isn'/ much ofa true classroom)'} A total score of this variable has been computed followingSMAQ instructions.

c) The internal (vs. external) Sense of Responsibility measures to what extent, according to thestudents, the majority of their classmates atid the majority of their teachers feel responsiblefor what it happened in the elass according to the dilemma presented (i.e.. In this situation,how many afyaur cla.ssmates/teachers... feel responsible for Mark's disciplinary letter?...feel guilty^ about Mark's situation... think thai ever\'body should defend only oneself). Therange of the answers to the eight items goes from "most of them" to "none of them" in a3-points Likert Scale, with "someone" in the intermediate position. Two seores werecomputed:

c!) Internal Sense of Responsibility: Classmates

c2) Internal Sense of Responsibility: Teachers

The second section of the Sehool Normative Context Questionnaire (SNCQ) eontains aset of two scales (5 point Likert Scale of agreement/disagreement) measuring the pereeptionof the "Schoo! as a Whole" dimension of the School Normative Context.

d) The School as a Community Scale (\2 items) is composed of two factors that after varimaxrotation (PC A) explain the 41.50% of variance:

dl) Negation of Community (i.e,, Most students of this school help the classmates only ifthey get something in return; Most students of this .school defend only their own

friends)\d2) Sense of Community (i.e.. Most students perceive this school as a community where

students and teaehers care about each other; Most .students of this school think thatthey can trust the other students).

e) The Schoo! as an Institution Scale (16 items) is composed of four factors that after varimaxrotation (ACP) explain the 59,45% of variance. The factors are:

el) Rejection of the School (i.e., Mosl students of this school go to school becau.se they 'venothing better lo da);

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 217

e2) Instrumental E.xtrtn,sic Evaluation ofthe School (i.e.. Most students of this institutethink that going to school is important for one's own future);

e3) Enthusiastic Identification with the School (i.e., When the school team wins an

important game, most of students feel proud to he students in this school);

e4) Positive Social Retations (i.e.. In this schoot, you feel that you belong).

As shown in Table 2. the reliahility coefficient of the School Normative Context totalscore is acceptable, even if some of the eleven scales that contributed to the construction ofthis total score, had not intemal consistency. This is true ahove all for the perception of theInternal Sense of Responsibility attributed to one's own Classmates and Teachers, andgenerally for the scales measuring the positions of teachers.

The Normative Orientation Scale (NOS) measures the adolescents orientation towardtransgression of social rules regarding the relationships with peers (to hit a boy/girl), withteachers (to insult a teacher), with parents (to disrespect father/mother) and with noncommunitarian people (to offend, to attack a foreigner). The scales contain bipolar adjectivesseparated by seven semantic spaces, such as right/wrong, useful/useless, justifiable/unjustifiable, reasonable/unreasonable, etc.

A stringing-out principal component analysis (PCA) conducted on the nine adjective bipolarscales showed a two factors solution (criteria) that after Varimax rotation explained the 60% ofvariance. The first factor was composed of five adjectives that refer to an Abstract MoralCompetence: useful/useless, right/wrong, reasonahle/unreasonahle, advantageous/disadvantageous, justifiable/unjustifiable; the factor loadings ranged from .83 to .66. The secondfactor loaded the adjectives against social norm/normative, that must be punished/must not bepunished, avoidable/often inevitable, and imposed/freely chosen (factor loadings ranging from.69 to .51), that could he considered indicators ofa Conventional Moral Competence. Thealpha score of both indicators was acceptable (Table 2). Abstract Moral Competence andConventional Moral Competence were significantly correlated (/^.54,p

The Aggression Scale (Orpinas & Frankowski, 2001) regards the frequency (rangingfrom 0 times through 6 or more) of different forms of aggression (physical, verbal andindirect) towards classmates that students claim to have done (13 items) and to have suffered(12 items) during the previous 7 days at school. Two items concerning indirect aggression (toexclude and to isolate a classmate) were added to the original Aggression Scale for this study.The a scores reported in Table 2 show high degree of intemal consistency of the scores of theaggression and victimization scales.

The questionnaire has been administered in the classroom by a researcher. Theadministration took one hour. The students were told that researchers were interested inknowing their opinion ahout their social relationships at school. They were told that thereweren't right or wrong answers and the questionnaire was anonymous. The headmasterssigned a consent form and they agreed to let their students participate in the research.

Data analysis

All scores of the SNCQ were computed following the SMAQ (Hast et al., 1998)elaboration instructions, using the mean method and converting the scores in a range from 0 toI. The mean method was used to create both the Normative Orientation scores and theAggression scores.

Descriptive statistics (range, mean and standard deviation) will be presented in order todescribe the distribution of all scales' scores considered in the study. Paired-Sample t test willhe used to compare the means of the scales which compose the constructs of the SchoolNormative Context, the Moral Principles, and the Moral Conducts.

218 T, MANCINI, L. FRUGGERI. & C, PANARI

In order to examine the reliability of the School Normative Context concept this studywill consider the alpha scores of the 11 scales that compose the construct. A second orderfactor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis will be conducted in order to examine theconstruct validity of the SNCQ.

Finally, Structural Equation Models will be used to verify the research hypothesis aboutthe relations among School Normative Contest. Orientation toward Social Norms andAggressive Behaviours at school.

Results

Descriptive analysis

Table 2 shows mean score, standard deviation and range of the 11 scales that composethe School Normative Context Questionnaire, and the Normative Orientation and AggressiveBehaviour scales.

As to the Single Class Normative Context dimension of the SNCQ, partieipants seemednot to be so eager to claim that both the majority of their classmates (A/,=0,42) and the majorityof their teachers (M=0.44) shared the Helping norm; the statistical significance showed thatstudents thought their teachers shared this norm more than their classmates [/{265)=-2.06,p<.Q5]. even if the means' levels were close. The mean score of the Stage of the CollectiveNorm (M, =0.51) showed that students' moral development was collocated between theinstrumental exchange (stage 2) and the interpersonal conformity (stage 3). As to theperception of the Responsibility in the implementation of the helping norm, data showed atendency to attribute to one's own classmates (M=0.51) and teachers (M^O.53) anexplanation of dilemma's causes in terms of internal locus. The participants tended to perceivetheir teachers as significantly more willing than their classmates to take responsibility for whatit happens in their classrooms [/(265)=-2.41, /7<.O5], but also in this case the means' levels ofthe two scales were close.

As to the School as Whole dimension of the SNCQ, the subseales scores showed thatstudents had a low sense of their school as a Community (Sense of Community=.35) even ifthey did not seem so eonvinced to deny that the school attended was a eommunity (NotNegation of Community=.45). The Not Negation of Community mean was significantly higherthan the perception of the Sense of Community mean [/(265)=8,08, ; J < , 0 0 1 ] . Participantstended to consider the school as a way to meet their own needs such as reaching a certifieateor an education useful in the future (Extrinsic Evaluation=.58). Moreover, they did not seemto reject the school {Nol Rejection of Schoot=.5t). Furthermore they thought that the studentsof their institute tended to identify enthusiastically themselves with the school (Enthusiasticldentification=.56) in which they had positive relations [Positive Social Relations=.5S).

The School Normative Context total score was placed at the intermediate degree of thescore.

The adolescents' orientation towards social norms regarding the relationships with peers,with teachers, with parents and with non communitarian people, indicated a relative highmoral competence. The descriptive data showed that the Abstraet Moral Competence scorewas significantly [/(265)-23.16, /?<,001] higher than the Conventional one. This resultsuggests that students tended to consider social norms more as abstract principles and valuesthan as duties and obligations to fulfil towards society.

As to aggressive behaviours towards classmates (Table 2) the mean aggression score(1.6) was significantly higher [/(265)=5,72./?<.OO1] than the mean of victimization score(1.2). The mean count of actual aggressive events revealed that adolescents claimed to haveenacted 19,73 (Scl=l5.3\) physical, verbal and/or indirect aggressive conducts during theprevious 7 days. Furthermore they claimed to have suffered these behaviours on an average of14,27 (Sch 11,99) times during the previous 7 days.

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 219

The construct validity of the School Normative Context Questionnaire (SNCQ)

We conducted a two step analysis in order to examine the construct validity of the SNCQ.First, we earried out a second order Principal Components Analysis (PCA) on the eleven

scales which composed the School Nonnative Context Total Score. The aim of such analysiswas to compare the dimensions of the School Normative Context construct with the dimen-sions that composed the original School Moral Atmosphere concept whose re-elaboration wasone of this research aims.

The factorial structure showed four faetors (criteria) that, after rotation (Varimax),explained 64.02% of total variance (Table 3).

Table 3

Summary of scales and factor loadings for varimax orthogonal four-factor solution (N. 266)

Factor loading*

School normaljve context factors School nonnative context scales 1 2 3 4

Connectedness with school d2. Senxe ofeommunin

el. Instrumenltil extrinsic evaluation of the schoole3. Enthusioilie identijkaiiim wilh the sehoole4. Positive .»xial relations

Constraint d 1. Not negation of communitye 1. Not rejection of the school

Collective moral judgment; classmates a l . Content of the helping norm: Classmates

c 1. Internal seme of responsibility: Classmates

b. Stage of Collective Norm

Collective moral judgment: Teachers a2. Content of the Helping Norm: Teachersc2. Inlemal .lense of responsibility: Teachers

% of vanance ^ 22.67 14.84 13.79 12-72

Note. *>.1O

This factorial solution confirmed other ones founded in previous studies (Brugman et al.,2003; Mancini & Fruggeri, 2003). The first factor {Connectedness with School) loaded thescales "Sense of Community", "Enthusiastic Identification with School" and "Social Relations(positive)". The second factor {Constraint) included the scales "Not Negation of Community"and "Rejection of Sehool". The third and fourth factors {Collective Contextual MoralJudgement according to the perspective of the majority of clas.smates and according to theperspective of the majority of teachers) combined the scales related to the "Content of theHelping Norm ", the "Stage of the Collective Norm", and the "Intemal sense of responsihility".

In the second step of the analysis, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis in order toverify the theoretical model described in Figure 1. The goodness-of-fit statistics had accept-able values (Byrne, 2001), even if the correlation between some errors not predicted in thetheoretical model should be considered {Chi-square (40)=49.49, p=.\S; Chi-square/df=\.lA:,GFI-.97; AGFI=.95; CFI-.98; RMSEA-.03] (see Figure 3).

As hypothesised, the model revealed the presence of two correlated latent factors whichcorresponded to the "Sehool as a Whole" dimension and to the '"Single Class" dimension ofFigure 2. The first one was eomposed of the scales that loaded the Connectedne.ss with Schooland the Constrain factors emerged from the second order faetor analysis. The correlationbetween errors of the Connectedness with School scales and the Not Rejection of the School.atid the Instrumental Extrinsic Evaluation of the School scales, could outline a more generalsense of dissatisfaction with the school. The "Single Class" dimension was eomposed of theseales that have heen included in the Classmates' Collective Contextual Moral Judgment and

n.77

0.700.820.76

0.30

0.150.17

0.170.16

0.18

0.770.670.69

o.io

0.130.33

0.13

0.K60.78

0.12

0.12

0.22

0.12

0.230.29

-0.17

0.710.81

220 T. MANCINI. L. FRUGGERI. & C. PANARl

in the Teachers' Collective Contextual Moral Judgment factors emerged from the secondorder factor analysis. In this case, the correlation between the Content of Helping Norm andthe Internal Sense of Responsibility referred to the teachers perspective, could be probablyrelated to other aspects of students' perception of their teachers.

Inlemal Senseof Rcsponsibilily:

Teachers

,08

,51

,45

.42

,10

,22

Figure 3. Model 1 for school normative context construct. Latent constructs are shown itiellipses, and observed variables are shown in rectangles (N. 266)

School normative context, moral competence and aggressive behaviours: Models 2 and 3

In order to verify the role played by the personal orientation toward social nonns and bythe perception of school nomiative context in the adolescents aggressive conducts at school,we have elaborated two different models that postulate three latent variables: SchoolNormative Context, Moral Competence and Aggressiveness.

The first model tested (model 2. Figure 4) showed that the School Normative Contextwas a mediating factor between the students' Moral Competence and their AggressiveBehaviours towards classtnates.

NORMATIVH CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 221

Figure 4. Standardized coeffieient for model 2: Normative context at sehool (N. 266).

The Sehool Normative Context latent factor was loaded both by the School dimensionand by the Class dimension that emerged from the confirmatory factor analysis already shownin Figure 3: In this case the school dimension loaded more than the class one.

The Aggressiveness latent variable was loaded hoth by the Acted and by the SufferedAggressive Behaviours: The Acted Aggressive Behaviours was the dimension that loaded themost.

Moral Competence was loaded both by the Abstract and by the Conventional dimensionsemerged from the stringing-out principal component analysis (see Table 3): The AbstractCompetence was the variable that loaded the most.

The goodness-of-fit statistics had good values (Byrne, 2001) and confirmed our hypothesis[Chi-square (6) 6.75,/>=.35; Chi-square/df=\.n; GFi=,99; AGFI=.97; CFI=.99;RMSEA=.O2]. Both the Moral Competence and the School Normative Context were related toAggressiveness Factor, hut the relation of School Normative Context with Aggressiveness(-.41) was higher than the relation of Moral Competence (-.31) with Aggressiveness. TheMoral Competence latent factor explained the 15% of variance of the School NormativeContext. The Moral Competence and the Sehool Normative Context explained the 36% ofAggressiveness latent variable variance.

These data confirmed those obtained through previous Italian (Mancini & Fruggeri,2003) and European studies {Brugman et al., 2003): The adolescents" perception of schoolnormative context affects aggressive acted and/or suffered behaviours towards classmates atschool. If we include also the moral principles that students have acquired through thesocialisation proeesses, the presented data show that the School Normative Context could be

222 T- MANCINI. L. FRUGGERI, & C. PANARl

also considered as a mediator between the students' personal orientation towards the socialnorms and their moral condticts at school. In other words, as shown in Figure 4, data confirmKohlberg's studies according to which School Moral Atmosphere is a mediator betweenMoral Competence and Behaviours. Nevertheless, according to other Kohlberg's studies, adifferent model could be possible, in which the School Moral Atmosphere influences theMoral Behaviour only indirectly, that is through Moral Competence.

We have tested a second model (model 3, Figure 5) in order to verify the same type ofrelation among the three latent variables that we have considered in our study (SchoolNormative Context, Orientation towards social norms, and Aggressiveness).

Figure 5. Standardized coefficient for model 3: Normative context at school (N. 266)

The goodness of fit statistics was good; they presented the same values as in model 2[Chi-.square (6) 6.75,/7=.35; Chi-square/c/f=\ .\3; GFI=.99; AGFI- .97 ; CFI=.99;RMSEA-.02; Figure 4]: Aggressiveness factor affected and explained the 28% of the SchoolNormative Context Factor variance that, in tum, affected and explained the 13% of the MoralCompetence Factor variance. Finally. Moral Competence affeeted and explained the 21% ofAggressiveness Factor variance.

Discussion

The School Normative Context eoncept tested in this research has shown a generalacceptable degree of reliability and a good conceptual validity, even if the psychometric

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 223

proprieties of some scales outline the need of ftirther adjustments. Confirming the importanceof the normative dimension in influencing the students behaviours at school (at least duringadolescence), this study also underlines that the consideration of the relational dimensionimproves the constructs previously used to measure the relation between norms and conducts,such as the School Moral Atmosphere concept elaborated by Brugman and coll. (1999).

The School Normative Context construct here tested seems to be the result of twocorrelated normative systems. The first refers to the infomial norms and values that regulatesocial relationships within the contexl of School as a Whole and to the degree these norms andvalues are shared by the majority of students in each school. The second refers to the informalnorms and values that regulate social relations wUh'tn the context of the Single Class and to thedegree these norms and values are shared by the majority of classmates and teachers in eachclass. In particular, this research has shown that the Normative Contexl of the School as aWhole contributes to the variance of the acted or suffered aggressive behaviours towardclassmates at school more than the Single Class Normative Context. In other words, the effectof the perception and sharing of the informal norms and values that regulate socialrelationships within school as a whole is higher than the effect of the perception and sharingof the informal norms and values that regulate social relationships within the single class.This outcome could be especially related to the Italian context where high schools differsignificantly from one another in terms of scholastic shared culture. In fact, data elsewherepresented (Panari, 2003). show that the combination of a less shared Sehool NormativeContext, associated with a lower degree of Moral Competence, and with more frequentAggressive Behaviours, is more common in some schools than in others.

Anyway we must also remember that it is the very Single Class Normative Contextdimension that still needs further psychometric adjustments. Particularly, the alpha scoreshave shown that we need lo work further on the operationalization of the following concepts:the sense of responsibility in the implementation of norms and the stage of collective norm. Infact, our re-elaboration of the School Moral Atmosphere (Hest et al., 1998) has pointed out therelevance of the perception of responsibility in the implementation of the nonns. Literaturereview has pointed out that the responsibility judgements involve one's personal relationshipwith the norms, while the personal value of norms constitutes the principle that regulatehuman actions (Blasi, 1980; Paolicchi, 1991). More relationally oriented approaches havepointed out that the responsibility involves the individual's self image (Schlenker et al.. 1994)and that, emerging from the proximity with other people, it constitutes the base ofrelationships (Arendt, 1989; Bauman, 1999). In this sense, the perception of responsibility inthe implementation of the helping norm could be considered as an inalienable dimension of aconstruct, such as the Single Class Normative Context, that wants to measure the degree towhich the informal norms and values regulating social relationships within schools are sharedby students and by teachers.

Our re-elaboration also suggests a more relational interpretation of the School NomiativeContext construct: that is, it suggests to consider the behavioural expectations that studentshave with respect to classmates and teachers. Following previous researches (Paolicchi, 1991;De Leo, 1996: De Piccoli et al., 2001) that have underlined how the social norms emerge fronirelational structures, we can suppose that the normative context here studied is also aconsequence of a positive class relational strueture. But, on the other side, a positive classrelational structure is only possible if the norms and values that regulate the relations amongclassmates, and among classmates and teachers, are shared, and if students and teachers feelresponsible for the implementation of such norms and values.

As to the second aim of the research, the results confirm that adolescents' perception ofschool normative context affects aggressive behaviours towards classmates done and/orsuffered at school,

In particular, the data show that a School Normative Context characterized by non-sharednorms, by an external sense of responsibility, and by a loose connectedness with school, isassociated to a higher frequency of aggressive behaviours at school. On the other side, aSchool Normative Context characterized by a shared system of values and norms, by an

224 T. MANCINI, L. FRUGGERI. & C. PANARl

internal sense of responsibility, and by a strong connectedness with school, is associated to alower frequency of aggressive conducts.

According to classic literature {Piaget, 1932; Kohlberg, 1969), the counter-normativebehaviours enacted by adolescents at school ean be considered as a reflection of the processesof acquisition and intemalization of moral principles which the scholastic experiencecontributes to develop (Emler & Reicher, 1995). In this research we have considered theadolescents' orientation toward social norms as an indicator of their moral competence and wehave hypothesised it as related to their aggressive conducts towards classmates. Model 2(Figure 4) here presented has nevertheless confirmed that these counter normative behavioursare only in part connected to the individual attitude towards social rules. They are also relatedto the more specific system of norms and values that regulate the relationships amongdifferent social actors in the context of the single classes and of the school as a whole. But thereverse is also possible: As shown in model 3 (Figure 5), the moral conducts influence thesystem of shared norms and values regulating school's aetors social relationships that in tuminfluence the individual attitudes towards social rules, influencing the moral eonducts. As thesocial cognitive theory suggests (Bandura, 1986). behaviour, environment, and personalcharaeteristies continuously infiuence each other and, thus, it is hard to establish which is thefirst and the most important factor.

Other studies are then probably needed in order to clarify these relations. According tothe data, the effects of the three latent factors considered in this research (Moral Competence,School Normative Context, Aggressiveness) seem reeiprocal. Certainly, their direction coulddepend on the fact that the measurement in this researeh has been conducted only on one pointin time, and longitudinal studies could be useful to better clarify the relations between MoralCompetence, Sehool Normative Context and Moral Behaviours. But we ean also hypothesisethat the direction of variables relationships depends on the multiple, different, and idiosyncraticschool cultures that characterize the Italian context. In this respect, studies with larger samplesof participants eould verify the hypothesis that Sehool Normative Context is affeeted by MoralBehaviours above all in those schools where counter-normative conducts are more frequent. Infact, in these schools the aggressive behaviours toward classmates and teachers and thetransgression of school rules eould have a strong impact on the normative eontext. that in tumcould influence in a relevant way also the students attitudes toward social rules. Theconfirmation of this hypothesis would be particularly significant in relation to the work ofEmler and Reicher (1995) who point out the fundamental role that the school context has inthe acquisition and internalization of soeial norms that regulate the behaviours enacted byadoleseents both at sehool, and out of sehool; as well as to the work of Palmonari (1997) whoindieates the acquisition of moral principles as one of the most important tasks thatadolescents have to cope with.

Though the research here presented has some limitations coneeming the limited numberof participants, as well as the psychometric proprieties of some indieators, it suggests that theSchool Normative Context could be a useful eoncept to orient educational programs aimed atelieiting positive relationships among students. As the data presented show, working on theconstruction of a positive normative context at sehool could reduce the students" eounter-nor-mative behaviours and have at the same time a positive effect on the adolescents' personalattitudes towards social rules.

Notes

' The Jusi Community approach describes the process thai members of an insiitution go through wbcn they developIhc morul atmosphere within tlieir own institution. This approach consists of a program thai mes to develop a highlevel of community or of group solidarity through opeti discussiotis focusing on fairness and morality and throughthe participation in rule making and rule enforcetnent (Hast cl al.. 1998).

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 225

References

Arendi, H. (1989). Vila acttva. La condizione umana. Milano: Bompiani.

Bandura. A. (1986). Social foundalions of ihoughi and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1996). Teoria socialcognitiva del pensiero e dcll'azione morale. Rassegna di Psicologia, 1,23-92.

Bauman, Z. (1999). Moderniia e olocausio. Bologna: II Mulino.

Beem, A.L.. Brugman, D., Hast, K., & Tavecchio, L.W.C. (2004). Students' perception of school moral atmosphere:From moral culture to social competence. A generalizability sludy. European Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology. 1(2), 171-192.

Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of ihe literature. Psvchological Bulletin88. 1-45.

Brugman, D., & Boom. J. (2003). Moral atmosphere in school, adolescents' moral development and their misbebaviour.Paper presented at ihc lOih Biennial Conference of ihe European Association for Research on Learning andInstruction (EARLl). Padova (llaly), August, 26-30.

Bmgman, D.. Hast, K., van Roosmalen, M.. & Tavecchio, L.W.C. (1994). Moral atmosphere in secondary school:Students' perception. Comenius. 14, 64-82.

Brugman, D.. Tavecchio. L.W.C. Van Os. B.J.. & Hast. K. (1999). Student perception of moral atmosphere In sec-ondary school: Their moral reasoning competence, and their praciicai judgement in school. MOSAIC (Moral adSocial action Interdisciplinary Colloquium) Monograph. 8. 1-48.

Bmgman. D., Podolskij, A.I., Heymans, P.G.. Boom, J.. Karabanova. O., & Idoabeva. 0. (2003). Perception of moralaimosphere in school and norm transgrcssive behaviour in adolescents: An intervention study. InternationalJournal of Behavioural Development, 4, 289-300.

Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling wilh AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming.Mahawah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Caprara. G.V,. Pastorelli C . & Bandura. A. (1995). La misura del disimpegno morale. Eta Evotutiva. 51, 18-20.

De Leo, G. (1996). Psicologia delta responsabilita. Roma: Laterza.

De Piccoli, N., Fravretio, A.R.. & Zaitron, F. (2001). Norme e agire quottdiano negli adolescenti. Bologna: II Mulino.

Eccles, J.S., Midgiey. C . Wigfield. A.. Buchanan, CM.. Reuman. D., Flanagan, C , & Maclver D. (1993). Developmentduring adolescence. The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experience in schools and family.American Psychologist. 48. 90-101.

Emier, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputalion. European Review of Social Psychology, / , 171-193.

Emier, N., & Reicher. S. (1995). Adole.%cence and delinquency. The collective management of reputation. Oxford:Blaekwell Publishers Ltd.

Fincham, F.D.. & Jaspars. J.M. (1980). Attribution of re.sponxihitity: From man the scienti.^t to man as lawyer. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 13, pp. 81-138). New York: AcademicPress.

Hart, H.L.A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Hartup. W.W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendship and they developmental significance. Child Development 67I-I3.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychologv of interper.wnal relation.'New York. Wiley.

Hoffman. M.L. (1977). Moral intemalization: Current theory and research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (vo\. 10. pp. X5-133). New York: Academic Press.

HBSI. K.. Bmgman. D., Tavecchio. L.W.C. & Beem. [,. (1998). Students' perception of moral atmosphere in secondaryschooi and relationships between moral competence and moral atmosphere. Journal of Moral Educaiion, 27 Al-70.

226 T MANCINI, L. FRUGGERI, & C. PANARl

Jones, E.E.. & Davis. K..E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In

L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 2. pp. 219-266). New York: Academic

Press.

Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory- in social psychology. In D. Ltvine (Ed.), Nebra.ska Symposium of Motivation

(vol. I5.pp. 192-240). Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press.

Kohlberg. L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialisation, [n A.D. Gosklin

[Ed.]. Handbook i>f socialisation: Theory and research (\>^. 347-480). Chicago (III); RandMcNally.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Exploring ihe moral atmosphere in institution: A bridge between moral judgements and moral

actions. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), The meaning and measurement of moral development (pp. 35-53). Worcester, MA:

Clark University Press.

Maggiolini, A., & Riva, E. (1999). Adolescenti tra.sgressivi. Le aziani devianti e !e risposte degli udulii. Milano; Franco

Angeli.

Maneini, T. (1999). Adole.scenii a scuola: Rapporti, percezione delle regole e gestione dei conflitti. Una ricerca Ira gli

studenii degli Istituli Superiori di Modena. Modena: Centro Stampa Comune di Modena.

Mancini, T. (2002). Orientamenti nei eonfronti dell'istituzione scolaslica. Una ricerca Ira adolescenti. In G. Di Stcfano

& R. Vianello (Eds.), Psicologia dello sviluppo e prohlemi educativi. Sludi e ricerche in onore di Guido Setter

(pp. 383-402). Firenze: Giunti.

Mancini, T., & Fruggeri, L. (2003). Moral atmosphere and aggressive behaviours in secondary school; An Italian

validation of ihe school moral atmosphere questionnaire. European Journal of School Psychology. 2{ 1), 305-329.

Mancini, T., Fruggeri, L., & Foa, C. (2003). ConicstI nonnativi scolastici c rclazioni tra pari in adolcscenza. Psicologia

Scolastica,2(\),l')-5\.

Orpinas, P., & Frankowski, R. (20011. The aggression scale: A self-report measure of aggressive behaviour for young

adolescents. Journal of Early Adole.scence, 21. 50-67.

Palmonari, A. (1997). Psicologia deU'adolescenza. Bologna: II Mulino.

Panari, C. (2003). // contesio normativo sculaslico e i comportamenii aggressivi. Una ricerca siigli studenii delle scuole

superiori. Tesi di laurea non pubblicata. University of Parma, Italy.

Paolicchi, P. (1991). Perche gli individui ohhediscono alle norme. In R. Conte (a cura di), La norma (pp. 77-108).

Roma: Editori Riuniti.

Piaget, J. (1932). Le jugement moral chez I'enfant. Paris: Alcan.

Power, C. (1985). Democratic moral education in the large moral high school. In M.W. Berkowit/ & F. Oser (Eds.),

Moral education: Theory and application (pp. 219-238). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Hillsdale.

Power, C , Higgins, A.. & Kohlberg, L. (1989). The just community approach !o moral education. Journal of Moral

Education, 17. 195-208.

Rubini, M., & Palmonari, A. (1995). Orientamenti verso le autorita formali e parlecipazione politica degli adolescenii.

Giomale Italiano di Psicologia, 5. 757-771.

Schlenker, B.R., BritI T.W.. Pennington, J., Murphy. R., & Doherly. K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibiUly.

P.sychological Review, 101, 632-53.

Thompson B., & Daniel L.G. (1996). Faclor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview

and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 56(2). 197-208.

Turner, R.H.,& Killian. L.M.(I972). Collec live behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: NJ Pretitice Hall.

Zamperini, A. (1998). Psicologia sociale della responxabilita. Torino: UTET.

Zimbardo, P.G. (1969). The human choice: Individitation. reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and caos.

In W.J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposiutn on Motivation (vol. 17, pp. 237-307). Lincoln, NE:

tJniversity of Nebraska Press.

NORMATIVE CONTEXT AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS AT SCHOOL 227

Le premier objectif de cette recherche est d 'introduire et de validerle concept de Omtexte Normalif Scolaire(CNS). Ce nouveau concept,developpe u partir de la notion d'Atmosphere Morale Scolaireproposee et etudiee par Brugman et collahorateurs (1999). se distinguecependant de cette derniere a deux egards: I'etude du CNS s'appuie.d 'une part, sur I 'analyse des dimensions inter actives relatives a chaquecontexte scolaire considere et, d'autre part, sur la perception deresponsabilite s 'agissanl de I 'application des regies sociales.

Le deuxieme objectif concerne I'etude des liens entre la perceptiondu CNS de la part des adolescents, teur orientation a I 'egard des regiessociales et leurs comportement.s agressifs envers leurs camarades declas.ses. La recherche a ete conduite par le biais d'un questionnairesouniis a 268 eleves (age moyen: 17.01 ans) provenant de trois ecolessuperieures italtennes (un Lycee. une ecole technique et une ecoleprofessionnelle). Le questionnaire comprend trois parties dijferentes.La premiere est finalisee a I'etude du CNS. la seconde vise arevaluation de t'orientation normative (NOS) et la troisieme permetd'evaluer les comportements agressifs (Orpinas & Frankowski. 2001).

Le Contexte Normatif Scolaire a montre un niveau acceptable devalidite aussi bien conceptuelte que predictive. Les resultats ont montreque le Contexte Normatif Scolaire influence les comportementsagressifs envers les camarades d'eco'le et qu'il intervient commefacteur de mediation entre I 'orientation des adolescents a I 'egard desregies sociales et leurs comportements agressifs a I 'ecole.

Key words: Adolescence, Aggressive behaviours. School nortnative context. Moralcompetence.

Received February 2005

Revision received: November 2005

Tiziana Mancini. Dcpartmenl of Psychology, University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi. 10. 43100 Pamia,Italy; E-mail: Tiziana.manciiiilaiunipr.it

Current theme of research:

Identity construction processes and self-concepl reorganization, with reference to adolescence, lo professional identityand to ethnic ideniity. Orientation to social norms, aggression and transgressive behaviours in adolescence Ethnicbelonging and acculluration models in a multicultural society. The citizens participaiion to health policy

Most relevant pubticatiuns in the field of Psychology of Education:

Mancini. T. (2002). Orientamenti nei confront! deH'istituzione scolasiica, Una ricerca tra adolescenli. In G. Di Stefano& R. Vianello (a cura di). Psicologia Jello sviluppo e prahlemi educativi. Studi e ricerche in onore di GuidoPelter (pp. 382-403). Fircnze: Giunti.

Mancini, T., & Fruggeri. L. (2003). Moral atmosphere in secondary school and aggressive behaviours in tbe classroom:An Italian validation of school moral atmosphere questionnaire (SMAQ). European Journal of SchoolPsychology, i(l). 305-329,

Mancini, T., Fruggeri. L., & Foa, C. (2003). Contesti normativi scolastici e relazionl tra pan in adolesccnza. Psicologiascolasiica, /, 29*51.

228 T. MANCINI. L. FRUGGERI. & C. PANARI

Laura Fruggeri. Department of Psychology, University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi, 10, 43100 Parma,

Italy; E-mail: Laura.fruggeri(gunipr.it

Current theme of research:

Families" relationships and developmental proeesses. Ethnic belonging and family relationships. Orientation to socialnorms, aggression and transgressive behaviours in adolescence. The citizens pariicipation to health policy.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Mancini. T.. & Fruggeri. L. (2003). Moral atmosphere in secondary school and aggressive behaviours in the classroom:

An Italian validation of school moral atmosphere questionnaire (SMAQl. European Journal of School

Psychotog\. 1(2), 305-329.

Mancim. T.. Fruggeri, L., & Foa. C. (2003). Contesti normativi scolastici e relazioni tra pari in adolescenza. Psicologia

scolastica. I. 29-51.

Chiara Panari. Department of Psychology. University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi. 10, 43100 Parma.Italy; E-mail: chiara.panari(^libero.it

Current iheme of research:

Ethnic belonging and family relationships. Orientation to social norms, aggression and transgressive behaviours inadolescence.