Received: 3 April 2019 | Revised: 6 September 2019 | Accepted: 23 September 2019

DOI: 10.1002/ab.21870

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Physical aggression toward teachers: Antecedents, behaviors,

and consequences

Susan D. McMahon1 | Eric Peist1 | Jacqueline O. Davis1 | Kailyn Bare1 |

Andrew Martinez 2
| Linda A. Reddy 3
| Dorothy L. Espelage 4
| Eric M. Anderman5

1
DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois
2
Center for Court Innovation, New York, New
Abstract
York School violence is a significant public health concern that occurs in many forms.
3
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey Physical aggression can cause serious bodily injury and long‐term negative effects,
4
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
and both teachers and students experience significant rates of physical aggression.
North Carolina
5
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
There are few studies examining teachers’ experiences of physical aggression. Studies
that go beyond prevalence are limited, and we know little about the triggers and
Correspondence
Dr. Susan D. McMahon, DePaul University,
consequences that surround these incidents. This qualitative investigation used an
College of Science and Health, 1110 W. antecedent‐behavior‐consequence (A‐B‐C) framework to understand how incidents
Belden, Suite 403, Chicago, IL 60614.
Email: smcmahon@depaul.edu
of physical aggression directed toward teachers unfold. The sample included 193
elementary and secondary teachers who completed an anonymous, online survey and
described events leading up to and following their experiences with physical
aggression. Using conventional content analysis, we identified common antecedents,
such as breaking up fights, discipline, and directives, and common consequences, such
as student removal, school staff involvement, positive outcomes, and inaction.
Further analyses revealed seven common A‐B‐C patterns among physical aggression
incidents that are highlighted and discussed. Utility of the A‐B‐C framework for
teacher‐directed violence is described, along with implications for research, practice,
and policy. Exploring the context surrounding incidents of physical aggression
directed against teachers provides useful information for violence prevention and
interventions.

KEYWORDS
aggressive behavior, antecedents, consequences, physical aggression, school violence, teacher
victimization, teacher‐directed violence

1 | INTRODUCTION during the previous 12 months (Musu‐Gillette et al., 2018). Other

School aggression and violence are significant public health concerns
affecting students and teachers. Acts of physical aggression range
from pushing, shoving, and throwing objects, to more severe
behaviors resulting in bodily injury (e.g., fighting, beating, use of
weapons; Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Physical aggression can have
long‐lasting effects on students, teachers, and the school community
(Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). In 2015‐16, about 10% of U.S teachers
were threatened with injury, and about 6% were physically attacked
Aggressive Behavior. 2019;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ab
studies suggest 8–12% of American educators are victims of physical
assault in a given year (Gerberich et al., 2011; Tiesman, Hendricks,
Konda, & Hartley, 2014). In most cases, students are the perpetrators
of these incidents (Levin et al., 2006), although teachers also report
physical aggression from parents and colleagues (McMahon et al.,
2014). While the prevalence of teacher‐directed physical aggression
is alarming, studies that go beyond prevalence are limited, and little is
known about the situational antecedents and consequences that
trigger and follow teacher victimization. Exploring antecedents and
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1
2 |
consequences of physical aggression toward teachers may lead to a
greater understanding of how and why incidents occur.
1.1 | Antecedent‐behavior‐consequence
framework
Previous research has focused on violence against teachers in terms
of types of violence and perpetrators (e.g., Martinez et al., 2016;
McMahon et al., 2014), resulting professional disengagement (e.g.,
Galand, Lecocq, & Philippot, 2007), and physical and emotional
effects of these incidents (e.g., Wilson, Douglas, & Lyon, 2011).
Although few studies have examined antecedents and consequences
of teacher‐directed violence, Anderman et al. (2018) examined
teacher behaviors following incidents of verbal and physical aggres-
sion and found that teachers communicate with others (e.g.,
administration, other teachers, family, union, counselor) and engage
in direct intervention (e.g., feedback to perpetrator, verbal repri-
mands, speak to parent). Theories can enhance our understanding of
violence toward teachers by identifying the mechanisms leading to
aggression (Bandura, 1973; Huesmann, 1988). For example, from a
social processing perspective, what teachers view as benign
directives may be viewed by students as hostile responses to
previous behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1996). Thus, interpretation of
antecedents and consequences may differ depending on the reporter
and the timing of the sequence (e.g., antecedents precede behaviors
which result in consequences).
Functional behavior analysis, or the antecedent‐behavior‐conse-
quence (A‐B‐C) model (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968), combines
descriptive and experimental data to understand behavior as a
function of one’s environment. This framework involves analyzing the
immediate antecedents (A) and consequences (C) of a particular
behavior (B) and provides a helpful tool for exploring the context
around physical violence against teachers (Espelage et al., 2013).
Espelage et al. (2013) argue that an interactional perspective is
beneficial for describing complex phenomena, such as violence
against teachers, allowing researchers to identify triggers of and
responses to violence.
Functional behavior analysis has been applied to a range of
settings, such as workplace bullying (LaVan & Martin, 2008) and
therapeutic interventions for children with autism (Virués‐Ortega,
2010). It has helped teachers develop intervention plans for
classroom aggression (Newcomer & Lewis, 2004). For example,
teachers commonly implement antecedent strategies in the class-
room, includingtransition warnings, modeling, explicit instructions,
and breaks in work periods; common consequences include time‐
outs, planned ignoring, and redirecting (Codding, Feinberg, Dunn, &
Pace, 2005). Traditional functional behavioral analysis (Bijou et al.,
1968) involves meticulous observation and documentation of events
as they unfold. In this study, this approach was modified to
understand events that led up to and followed teachers’ reported
experiences of physical aggression. A similar approach was used to
understand the antecedents and consequences of verbal aggression
toward teachers (McMahon et al., 2019).
MCMAHON ET AL.
In one of the few studies to use functional behavior analysis in
schools, Wehby, Symons, and Shores (1995) explored antecedents
and consequences of aggressive behaviors in an elementary school
sample with emotional and behavioral disorders (n = 28). Through
direct observation, prevalent patterns of behavior were identified.
For example, teacher social commands (i.e., verbal statements
focused on students’ social behaviors), confiscation of students’
possessions, and teacher instructional commands (i.e., asking a
student for a particular academic‐related behavior) were the most
common antecedents. Wehby et al. (1995) also reported that teacher
social commands and confiscation of students’ objects proved to be
common responses to teacher‐directed aggression. Thus, there is
some conceptual ambiguity regarding antecedents and conse-
quences, as teacher actions (e.g., instructional commands) can both
trigger aggression and serve as a response to aggression. Further, the
small sample size of elementary students with emotional and
behavior disorders indicates further qualitative work is needed to
assess behavioral sequences and practices that contribute to or
curtail violence across development. The current study extends the
A‐B‐C framework for K‐12 teachers using the A‐B‐C model for
guiding the identification of behavior triggers, assessing responses,
and illustrating A‐B‐C patterns of teacher‐directed violence.
1.2 | Investigation rationale
Physical aggression remains a serious problem in schools with
adverse effects and substantive rates toward teachers (e.g.,
McMahon et al., 2014; Musu‐Gillette et al., 2018; Reddy, Espelage,
Anderman, Kanrich, & McMahon, 2018; Wilson et al., 2011), yet
we know little about how these incidents unfold. This qualitative
study examines contextual factors surrounding incidents of
physical aggression toward teachers using an A‐B‐C framework
to address the following questions: (a) What types of physical
aggression do teachers experience? (b) Who are the perpetrators
of physical aggression toward teachers? (c) What antecedents and
consequences are commonly involved in physically aggressive
incidents against teachers? (d) What are the most common A‐B‐C
patterns that illustrate teacher‐directed physical aggression?
Understanding physical aggression, perpetrators, common ante-
cedents and consequences, as well as patterns, taking into account
demographic differences, may inform violence prevention and
intervention strategies.
2 | M A T E R I A L S AN D M E T H O D S
2.1 | Participants
Participants are a subset of teachers from a larger study conducted
by The American Psychological Association (APA) Classroom
Violence Directed Against Teachers Task Force. There were 2,431
teachers who responded to open‐ended prompts about their most
upsetting experience with aggression. Within this sample, teachers
who reported (a) an incident of physical aggression (n = 903) and
MCMAHON ET AL.
provided (b) an antecedent (n = 429) and (c) a consequence (n = 390)
of the incident were identified for inclusion in this study, resulting in
193 teachers in pre‐k through 12th grade from 29 states. This study’s
sample was predominantly White (88.1%), female (87.0%) public
school teachers (94.3%), with an average age of 47 and 18 years of
teaching experience. Teachers taught in elementary (grades pre‐K‐
5th grade; 42.0%), middle (6th–8th grade; 24.4%), and high schools
(9th–12th; 25.9%). Most participants held at least a bachelor’s
degree (94.3%) and more than half (57.5%) held a master’s degree or
higher. Participants taught in rural (11.4%), suburban (34.7%), and
urban (53.9%) settings. These demographics are similar to national
averages (National Center for Education Information, 2011) and to
the larger study sample.
2.2 | Measures
The APA Classroom Violence Directed Against Teachers Task Force
developed an anonymous, online survey to assess the extent and
nature of teacher‐directed violence. This study uses data from four
open‐ended prompts: (a) Please think of all the times when you were
the target of verbal or physical aggression or intimidation in your
school. Can you describe what was the most upsetting incident that
happened to you in your role as a teacher? (b) In your own words,
please explain why you think this incident happened. (c) How did this
incident impact your view of your current teaching position? (d)
Please provide any other information that may be important to note
in the incident described. Type of perpetrator (e.g., student,
colleague, parent, administrator) of the incident was assessed based
on answers to these prompts.
2.3 | Procedures
Following IRB approval, online data collection took place from
January to May of 2010. The APA Center for Psychology in Schools
and Education (CPSE) collaborated with the American Federation of
Teachers (AFT), National Education Association (NEA), and individual
states’ education associations to distribute the survey to teachers
nationwide. Participants were provided with information about the
study and consented to participate by subsequently completing the
survey. Upon completion, participants were provided with an online
brochure created by the APA Task Force about how teacher‐directed
violence can be addressed in schools.
2.4 | Coding and analysis
Conventional content analysis uses an inductive approach to
describe a phenomenon through textual data, allowing themes to
emerge from participant responses (Creswell, 2013; Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005). This qualitative approach was selected for its
utility in examining an understudied topic that lacks established
theory (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) and to develop categories and
themes to assess antecedents and consequences of teachers’ most
upsetting incidents of physical aggression.
| 3
2.4.1 | Developing a coding structure and
establishing reliability
The research team of four graduate student coders used QSR NVivo‐
10. To develop a codebook, the researchers first read and discussed
participant responses to the open‐ended survey questions to
familiarize themselves with the data. The research team utilized an
iterative coding process (Miles & Huberman, 1994) that included
open coding to identify codes across participant responses and
organizing a hierarchical coding structure across coders (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005). This approach allowed for identification of common
themes and development of a codebook. Consensus‐based decisions
were made to refine and finalize hierarchical codes and sub‐codes.
The codes were applied to responses across all four open‐ended
questions for each participant. As coding continued, code definitions,
including exclusion criteria, were further refined. Once the codebook
was complete, the team achieved inter‐rater reliability (κ = .80)
separately for each of the four open‐ended questions with each
question’s relevant codes on 10% of the overall data (240
participants of the 2,431 who completed the qualitative portion of
the original survey).
2.4.2 | Data analysis
Data analysis was conducted across all four responses for the 193
participants who described physical aggression with antecedent/s and
consequence/s. Physical aggression in the codebook was defined as
aggressive actions directed at the teacher that involved physical
contact, or required physical evasion by the target or intervention by a
third party to avoid contact. Some examples included hitting, kicking,
shoving, biting, use of weapons, or use of objects intended as weapons
(e.g., throwing a desk, stabbing with a pencil). Using a modified
functional behavioral analysis approach, codes were tallied to system-
atically identify (a) types of physical aggression, (b) individuals
responsible for these incidents, (c) events that occur before and after
physical aggression incidents, and (d) common patterns of antecedents
and consequences across incidents. Logistic regressions were also
conducted to assess teacher likelihood of experiencing types of
violence, antecedents, and consequences based on grade level taught
and demographic variables (i.e., teacher race and gender).
3 | RESULTS
To address our first research question regarding types of physical
aggression teachers experience, qualitative data analysis revealed
the most common type of physical aggression was bodily contact
(65%). These incidents included kicking, hitting, punching, shoving,
biting, and head butting. Physical aggression with the use of objects
as weapons (e.g., desks, chairs, pencils) was somewhat common
(17%). Posturing (e.g., obscene gestures and actions, approaching or
posing in a threatening manner, intentionally invading personal
space) was reported by 12% of teachers. Fewer teachers reported
4 |
incidents involving a weapon (4%), and the remaining incidents (2%)
varied. Type of aggression did not vary by teacher race or gender, but
logistic regressions revealed that high school teachers reported more
nonverbal posturing compared to elementary teachers (odds ratio
[OR] = 3.8, confidence interval [CI] = 1.26–12.9). Regarding our
second research question about perpetrators of violence, students
were described as perpetrators of physical aggression in approxi-
mately 94% of teachers’ responses, making them the most common
perpetrators. Parents were described as perpetrators in about 7% of
teachers’ responses, and other perpetrators (e.g., colleagues, un-
known) were mentioned in 2% of teachers’ responses. A small
number of teachers mentioned multiple perpetrators (3%). Many
teachers (43%) experienced co‐occurring verbal aggression (e.g.,
yelling, insults, swearing, talking back). It is important to recognize
that these percentages represent the subsample of 193 teachers who
reported experiencing physical aggression, which may not represent
the rates for the larger population of teachers.
3.1 | Antecedents and consequences
Our third research question was derived to assess common antecedents
and consequences of physical aggression toward teachers. The most
frequently reported antecedents were discipline (25%), directives (19%),
breaking up a fight (16%), and de‐escalation (13%). Discipline was
defined as providing a consequence for a student’s behavior (e.g.,
detention, loss of privileges). Directives were instructions or commands
to comply with classroom and/or school rules. Breaking up a fight
involved teachers attempting to physically separate or stop students
who were fighting. De‐escalation included any attempts to calm an
upset student. Remaining antecedents included student’s academic
performance (7%), teachers as bystanders to another incident (5%),
problem solving strategies other than discipline or directives (4%),
spreading false information (3%), school staff actions (2%), and teachers
asking for assistance (1%). Antecedents that did not fit in other
categories were coded as “other” (5%). Although several of these
antecedents can also be viewed as consequences of previous
transgressions, teachers described these events as the precursors to
their most upsetting physical aggression incidents. Further analysis
revealed that elementary teachers reported more de‐escalation (OR =
4.19, CI = 1.32–18.66), fewer actions related to breaking up fights
(OR = 0.30, CI = 0.11–0.74), and fewer instances of discipline as
antecedents compared to middle school teachers (OR = 0.36, CI =
0.16–0.79). Antecedents did not vary by teacher race or gender.
We also identified a range of consequences to incidents of physical
aggression. The most common was student removal (20%), including
removal for a class period, in‐school suspension, out‐of‐school
suspension, switching the student to another classroom, or expulsion.
The second most common consequence was police or legal involve-
ment (19%). Participants also reported the absence of a consequence
(i.e., inaction) when school personnel ignored or chose not to respond
to the incident (15%) and positive outcomes, such as an apology or
increased student services (15%). It was also common for school staff
(14%), parents (4%), or others (e.g., other family members) (5%) to
MCMAHON ET AL.
become involved, often by teacher request. On some occasions, the
teacher was punished (7%), such as being reprimanded, removed, or
suspended. Teachers rarely mentioned a consequence that did not fit
in any of the above categories (1%). Teacher reports of consequences
did not vary significantly by grade level taught, race, or gender.
3.2 | A‐B‐C patterns
We examined common A‐B‐C patterns to address our fourth
research question, and several antecedent‐behavior‐consequence
patterns emerged from our analyses (see Figure 1). Frequently,
breaking up a fight preceded physical aggression, which led to several
possible consequences: police or legal involvement, other school staff
involvement, and/or student removal. In addition, teacher discipline
of a student was a frequent antecedent of aggression, resulting in
inaction, student removal, or a positive outcome. Finally, teacher
directives often led to physical aggression, which resulted in inaction.
These A‐B‐C patterns are described below.
3.2.1 | Breaking up a fight (A) → physical
aggression (B)
Breaking up a fight often preceded physical aggression. Sometimes
students intentionally hurt the teacher, who attempted to stop a
violent altercation. In other incidents, teachers were accidentally
hurt when they intervened in the physical conflict. These incidents
often resulted in involvement by other school staff, student removal,
or police or legal involvement.
3.2.2 | Breaking up a fight (A) → physical
aggression (B) → other school staff involvement (C)
Physical aggression preceded by breaking up a fight was commonly
followed by other school staff involvement. For instance, teachers’
colleagues became involved to assist or stop the physical aggression
toward the teacher. Administrators sometimes became involved to
investigate the incident. One teacher (White female, 33 years old, 8th
grade) explained:
A girl was in an altercation with another girl, and I was
trying to break it up (A). I managed to corner the girl so she
could no longer hit the other girl, so she turned her anger
toward me. She pulled my ponytail and kept me down by
pulling my hair and trying to hit me (B)… I looked around
for some help, and a teacher was just watching me, a man,
and he would not help me. Finally, another male teacher
came to rescue me, and he pulled the girl off of me (C)…My
principal investigated (C) and knew without a doubt that I
was physically attacked, and the girl was expelled.
This example demonstrates how colleagues and administrators
become involved in these incidents, as well as how some staff
members may assist while others are reluctant to intervene.
MCMAHON ET AL.
FIGURE 1 Patterns of antecedents and consequences of physical aggression
3.2.3 | Breaking up a fight (A) → physical aggression
(B) → student removal (C)
Aggression preceded by breaking up a fight often resulted in student
removal, such as suspension or expulsion. This pattern is represented
in the previous example, where the student was expelled following
the investigation of the incident.
3.2.4 | Breaking up a fight (A) → physical aggression
(B) → police or legal involvement (C)
Police or legal involvement most frequently took the form of
teachers pursuing action against their perpetrators. For instance,
one teacher (Native American female, 58 years old, high school)
reported the following:
I was in between two students (A). The female was very
upset, got around me, and kicked the male student. He
reached over me and slapped her. As I turned my back to
her (my mistake) to tell him to go to the office, she hit me
as hard as she could in the upper arm (B)… The [School
Resource Officer] at the time took a picture of the (huge)
bruise on my arm and filed charges for me (C)… The case
was dismissed a year later.
Often police were notified but charges were not filed against the
perpetrator. In some instances, parents allegedly filed false charges
| 5
against a teacher who broke up a fight to protect their physically
aggressive child. Teachers noted incidents could have been prevented
by (a) preventing students from returning to class after an earlier violent
incident, or (b) reporting individuals who should not be on campus.
3.2.5 | Discipline (A) → physical aggression (B)
Physical aggression toward teachers was also frequently preceded by
student discipline. In these instances, the teacher tried to enforce
consequences for a student’s misbehavior (e.g., giving a detention,
confiscating a prohibited item). Following the aggression, patterns of
consequences included inaction, student removal, or a positive outcome.
3.2.6 | Discipline (A) → physical aggression
(B) → inaction (C)
Teachers reported several reasons for the lack of consequences.
Most commonly, teachers asserted the principal did not handle the
incident properly. The following teacher (White male, 24 years old,
middle school) describes a typical incident fitting this A‐B‐C pattern:
I told a 7th grade girl to remove her headphones and put
her iPod away. Students are not supposed to have such
items in school… She ignored me and continued walking
down the hallway. I stopped her, and I told her that she
needed to take it to the office (A). She became belligerent,
6 |
shoved me (B), and shouted a number of obscenities and
threats…Unfortunately, such behaviors are quite common
at my school, and they go largely unpunished by my
principal (C).
As this quote illustrates, teachers expressed disappointment with
the lack of discipline and administrative action following incidents of
aggression. Some teachers reported a student was not disciplined
because the student was a “star athlete” or in special education.
3.2.7 | Discipline (A) → physical aggression
(B) → student removal (C)
Another common consequence of aggression preceded by discipline
was student removal. Notably, teachers often reported removal did
not improve student behavior, and administration did not handle the
incident properly, despite the consequences implemented. One
educator (African American female, 51 years old, 3rd and 4th grade)
demonstrated how removal from the class does not necessarily
improve students’ behavior:
A keyboard was thrown at me (B). Student was upset
because I took away his [Playstation] system (A). He was
playing with it in class. Student was only given 2 days
suspension (C). If I were an administrator, I know that he
would have gotten more days home to think about his
inappropriate behaviors. Today he is still showing out,
refusing to come to class.
Other teachers did view student removal as effective. For
instance, one teacher (White female, 40 years old, elementary
school) deemed the placement of a student in an alternative
school as a more appropriate educational setting to meet the
needs of the student.
3.2.8 | Discipline (A) → physical aggression
(B) → positive outcome (C)
Our analyses also revealed a pattern of positive outcomes. These
outcomes included the teacher receiving an apology, a perpetrator
receiving services, an improved relationship between the teacher and
perpetrator, and the quick and appropriate handling of the incident
by administration. For instance, one teacher (White female, 38 years
old, 1st grade) wrote about asking a student with mental health
problems to leave the classroom (A) after he repeatedly acted in a
disruptive and aggressive manner toward his classmates. When
disciplined, the student pushed the teacher and began to “continually
punch me HARD using both fists” (B). However, this incident had a
positive ending: a colleague intervened to stop the violence, and the
“student now has a shortened school day with a tutor (C) because I
wrote a letter about my concerns to Administration and Union.”
Another teacher (White male, 36 years old, elementary school)
reported an incident perpetrated by a parent after referring the
MCMAHON ET AL.
parent’s son to the principal’s office (A). The teacher stated: the
parent “grabbed my arm in anger” (B), but the incident made the
teacher “more determined than ever to want to make a difference”
(C). In addition, the teacher believed that the parent received a
suitable consequence (i.e., banned from the building for the school
year), and the parent apologized (C).
3.2.9 | Directive (A) → physical aggression
(B) → inaction (C)
Directives were also common antecedents to physical aggression,
frequently resulting in no consequences for the perpetrator.
Common directives included asking a student to return to class or
to participate in a class activity. Teachers cited school discipline
policy, an unsupportive administration, and a lack of resources for
students with disabilities as reasons for the lack of appropriate
consequences. Some teachers said the lack of accountability for
students’ aggressive actions emboldens them to continue acting
violently. One teacher (White female, 35 years old, 4th grade)
described her experience as follows:
When I was pregnant, I asked a student…to stop walking
(A) so that I could address a situation he was involved in.
This student proceeded to walk through me, almost
knocking me to the floor (B). The most upsetting part was,
according to discipline standards, he was unable to be
disciplined because he had already exceeded his 10 days
out of school (C).
This teacher highlights concerns many have related to discipline
and the lack of consequences for physical aggression offenses,
which make teachers feel unsafe and dissatisfied with their
profession. Another teacher (White female, 28 years old, middle
school) described an incident with a colleague perpetrator that
began when she provided a directive to a student to stop throwing
food (A). The colleague disagreed with the teacher’s directive and
threw an orange at the teacher’s stomach (B). Following the
incident, the teacher reported, “It happened in front of my students
and hers, and she was allowed to basically abuse me and nothing
happened to her (C).” Both incidents highlight teachers’ frustration
when perpetrators are not disciplined.
4 | D I S C U SS I O N
The current study provides valuable information regarding incidents,
surrounding context, and patterns of teacher‐directed physical
aggression. While the prevalence of violence against teachers has
been studied (e.g., McMahon et al., 2014; Musu‐Gillette et al., 2018;
Reddy et al., 2018), this study is one of few examining antecedents
and consequences of aggression toward teachers to understand how
these events unfold from a teacher’s perspective. The A‐B‐C
framework offers insights to better understand physical aggression
MCMAHON ET AL.
in schools, establish methods to prevent aggression, and intervene
effectively when it does occur (McMahon et al., 2019).
Our sample included teachers who experienced a range of
physical aggression, including bodily contact, aggressive posturing,
and use of weapons or objects as weapons. Students perpetrated
the majority of physical aggression in the present study, and parents
and colleagues were occasionally perpetrators, adding to literature
with similar patterns (e.g., Gerberich et al., 2011). From a
developmental perspective, high school teachers experienced more
nonverbal posturing compared to elementary teachers in the
sample. Research demonstrates that physical aggression is typically
highest among elementary students (Gerberich et al., 2011), but the
high school transition period can be associated with increased
student aggression (Frey, Ruchkin, Martin, & Schwab‐Stone, 2009).
Critical periods of youth development are characterized by social,
biological, and cognitive changes (Eccles et al., 1993), during which
one would expect differences in levels and types of physical
aggression. High school students often demonstrate attitudes that
challenge teacher authority (Yariv, 2009), and as students grow in
physical stature over the course of adolescence, nonverbal postur-
ing may be more commonly used due to being an effective method
of challenging teachers. Overall, few studies have examined how
specific types of physical aggression vary across development in
schools, and the current study takes an initial step in exploring
developmental differences.
Common antecedents of physical aggression included discipline,
directives, breaking up a fight, and individual de‐escalation with
elementary teachers reporting more de‐escalation, fewer actions
related to breaking up fights, and less discipline compared to middle
school teachers. Differences in discipline are consistent with an
increase in discipline issues and suspension rates when students
transition from elementary to middle school (Theriot & Dupper,
2010). The limited existing research demonstrates that discipline and
directives are frequent antecedents of teacher‐directed aggression
(e.g., Tiesman et al., 2014; Wehby et al., 1995). Consequences of
physical aggression also varied, including student removal, police or
legal involvement, inaction, and positive outcomes. In a national
sample, Musu‐Gillete et al. (2018) found over one‐quarter of public
schools removed at least one student for more than 5 days, and
about one‐third of schools contacted law enforcement regarding an
incident of violence in the 2015‐16 academic year. The antecedents,
consequences, and types of physical aggression found highlight the
variability among teacher‐directed incidents of violence (e.g., Allen &
Anderson, 2017) and add to the limited literature in this area.
4.1 | Physical aggression A‐B‐C patterns
Teachers’ responses indicated common A‐B‐C patterns among
incidents of aggression. Identification of such patterns may help
school stakeholders prevent incidents of violence and learn when and
how to intervene. Breaking up a fight often leads to teacher‐directed
physical aggression, which results in several common outcomes,
including school staff involvement, student removal, or police or legal
| 7
involvement. Teachers have varied opinions on when intervention in
a physical altercation among students is necessary or acceptable, yet
the majority view intervening in fights as the responsibility of all
school staff (Meyer, Astor, & Behre, 2004). In this study, teacher
involvement in fights often led to their most upsetting incidents.
Although teachers may feel a responsibility to intervene in student
fights, they may not take the necessary safety precautions or have
the training to effectively intervene.
Student removal was one of the most common consequences in
our A‐B‐C patterns. Although student removal includes a wide range
of actions, research generally indicates exclusionary discipline can
have significant negative impacts on students (Noguera, 2003) and
place students at further risk for antisocial behaviors (APA Zero
Tolerance Task Force, 2008). Some incidents of teacher‐directed
physical aggression may require student removal (e.g., expulsion), but
such strategies can fall short in the absence of complementary
interventions for the student (e.g., counseling, wraparound services)
and school (e.g., school climate improvement strategies, school‐wide
positive behavioral supports; Osher, Bear, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010).
Strategies focused on building students’ relationship, decision‐
making, and self‐regulation skills may be especially effective for the
prevention of problem behaviors that may require student removal
(Osher et al., 2010).
Involvement of other school staff was a common consequence of
aggression resulting from breaking up a fight. This included teachers
seeking help from other teachers, colleagues attempting to provide
support, and administrators handling the aftermath of the incident.
Consistent with the literature, teachers often seek support after
incidents of violence from another teacher (Anderman et al., 2018;
Bounds & Jenkins, 2016). Colleagues who witness a teacher breaking
up a fight may be inclined to intervene because they have
experienced similar situations (Kulik & Mahler, 1990). Administrators
are also likely to be involved after an incident, given their role in
school safety and implementation of discipline policy (Anderman
et al., 2018; Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009).
Teachers often reported police became involved following
breaking up a fight and physical aggression, indicating the severity
of these incidents. When there is an immediate physical threat to
students, teachers, or staff, contacting police is appropriate (ACLU
of California, 2016); however, too much police involvement in
schools can impinge upon students’ rights and create an environ-
ment that feels like a prison (e.g., Beger, 2002). When school
security guards and police are perceived by students, teachers, and
administrators as an integral part of school structure, they may
prevent and assist with incidents of violence (Astor et al., 2009).
Many school districts lack effective policies to increase campus
safety and minimize police contact during nonviolent and less
severe incidents; therefore, police are often contacted unnecessa-
rily (ACLU of California, 2016). Schools should focus on implement-
ing specific protocols around contacting police when an immediate
physical threat exists.
Our analyses also illustrated how teachers’ attempts to discipline
students can lead to aggression. Consistent and fair discipline is
8 |
associated with better school climate and lower rates of student
misbehavior (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005).
Therefore, it is important for classroom and school discipline policies
to be clear and consistently applied from the beginning of the school
year, so students know what to expect. The current study indicates
three common consequences of this pattern: inaction, student
removal, and positive outcomes.
Teachers often felt frustrated and unsupported due to the lack
of consequences following their most serious incidents of physical
aggression. Administrators play a central role in addressing school
violence, as they are involved in implementing policy and providing
school leadership (Astor et al., 2009; Brooks & Brooks, 2013).
Effective principals encourage collaboration, create a positive
school climate, and support and motivate their teachers (e.g., Astor
et al., 2009). When teachers do not feel adequate support from
administrators following a violent incident, they may feel blamed,
unsafe, or disempowered (McMahon et al., 2017), and less
administrative support is associated with higher levels of multiple
victimization (Martinez et al., 2016). Inaction may also suggest
school leaders’ limited interest or training in generating effective
solutions for aggressive incidents, which may make these issues
more likely to reoccur.
Another A‐B‐C pattern revealed teacher directives leading to
physical aggression followed by inaction. This pattern indicates
students often respond aggressively to teacher commands, and
teachers often report that their schools do not take appropriate
action. When teachers provide directives, it is important they are
clear, concise, and stated positively (Orlich, Harder, Callahan,
Trevisan, & Brown, 2010). Directives should specifically state
what students should do, rather than what they should not do
(Orlich et al., 2010). Effective directives can decrease the
likelihood that students will respond negatively and become
aggressive by setting positive expectations for social and
academic behaviors.
Although many incidents of physical aggression led to negative
consequences, some teachers cited positive outcomes, such as
genuine apologies, stronger relationships, and increased services.
Teachers who develop positive relationships with their students
may be able to change students’ negative behavioral trajectories
(Newberry, 2010). Reeve (2006) describes four major character-
istics of teachers who develop “high‐quality” student‐teacher
relationships: attunement (i.e., sensing students’ needs and adjust-
ing), relatedness, supportiveness, and gentle discipline (i.e., explain-
ing why a behavior is correct and a different behavior is wrong).
Training teachers to develop these characteristics and skills could
lead to fewer incidents of violence.
4.2 | Limitations
Results of this study should be considered within the context of
several limitations. The emergence of A‐B‐C patterns in teachers’
descriptions highlights the robust nature of these patterns; yet,
findings may have differed if specific detailed questions about
MCMAHON ET AL.
antecedents and consequences had been posed. Further, we used
cross‐sectional, self‐report data rather than observation, so
duration, timing, and additional context in the sequence of
antecedents and consequences were not available. Also, in some
cases teacher behaviors that are considered antecedents (e.g.,
disciplining student) of student aggressive behavior could also be
consequences for behavior. Although we can assess temporal
order through qualitative data, teachers may not have elaborated
upon the full sequence of behavioral issues. Observations and
longitudinal data may facilitate assessment of temporal ordering
and bidirectional influences. Further, teacher self‐report may
also be affected by challenges in recall and hindsight bias, given
teachers were asked to recall a specific upsetting incident for
which the timing was variable. The sample was also limited to
experiences of U.S. teachers, so findings may not represent
experiences of educators globally. Finally, violence directed
toward teachers is influenced by larger contextual factors that
we did not assess (e.g., discipline policies, regard for teachers,
school climate). Future studies should consider school and
community level predictors of violence, as well as bidirectional
influences across multiple stakeholders (e.g., students, adminis-
trators, parents). Despite the study limitations, these teachers’
experiences illustrate important patterns and highlight implica-
tions for research, practice, and policy.
4.3 | Implications
4.3.1 | Research
Given this is one of the first studies to apply the A‐B‐C
framework to teacher‐directed aggression, further research is
warranted to better understand these patterns and the nuances
between antecedents and consequences in larger diverse samples
within and across school levels in the United States and in other
countries. Behavioral observation, surveys completed by multiple
reporters across time, and in‐depth qualitative interviews with
teachers are needed. A traditional functional behavior analysis
perspective would also be useful: one could examine the A‐B‐C
contingencies we identified in more detail, including how a
consequence in one A‐B‐C pattern may become the antecedent of
a new pattern. Although student removal and police or legal
involvement were common consequences among our patterns,
research has demonstrated removing students from classrooms
or schools neither improves those students’ behavior, nor creates
better learning environments for other students (Noguera, 2003).
Therefore, it is necessary to examine factors contributing to
positive outcomes, negative outcomes, and inaction following
these incidents. Lunenburg (2010) suggests effective principals
create and enforce school policies, rules, and procedures, as well
as establish behavioral norms to build a cultural foundation of
excellence in the school. Examining principal roles, perspectives,
relationships, training, and barriers to action may assist in
creating a positive and responsive school environment where
teachers feel supported. Finally, further research examining
MCMAHON ET AL.
teacher‐directed physical aggression by developmental level is
warranted to better understand how critical periods of youth
development contribute to this issue.
4.3.2 | Practice
Our findings have practical implications for school stakeholders,
and educators may utilize the A‐B‐C framework to determine
which of their actions are effective in preventing and handling
incidents of violence (Espelage et al., 2013). Our data indicate
teacher intervention in aggressive incidents through actions that
are part of their job (e.g., discipline, directives) frequently results
in their own victimization; however, this does not necessarily mean
they were responsible for it. Instead, these findings highlight the
need for better training in de‐escalation and restorative methods
such as restorative questioning, which from a social‐processing
standpoint, may potentially challenge existing attributions of
student behavior. Fields (2004) advises teachers receive training
in verbal de‐escalation, physical intervention, and physical re-
straint to handle such situations effectively. Teachers should be
informed of school and district policies regarding teacher engage-
ment in fights, along with laws and legal ramifications of
intervening in these conflicts. In addition to preemptive training,
therapeutic services should be available to school staff and
students following aggressive incidents.
Given the aforementioned issue of inaction, it is clear teachers
desire more support from administrators and each other. Principal
leadership is a key component of preventing school violence (Astor
et al., 2009), and principal support is associated with less
victimization of teachers by students and colleagues (Martinez
et al., 2016). One way administrators can support teachers is to
collect data within their schools about violence and aggression and
use this data to inform school policies. Along with support comes
improved communication, which our findings indicate is needed
among all school stakeholders. Collaboration among school stake-
holders contributes to a positive school climate (Cohen, McCabe,
Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009).
Discussions of school violence prevention often emphasize
removing weapons from schools. Establishing a weapons‐free school
zone is crucial, yet our findings also indicate perpetrators use
everyday objects as weapons. Therefore, other forms of violence
prevention (e.g., primary and secondary levels) are needed in our
schools in addition to tertiary intervention. Bullying prevention,
threat assessment, and improved student engagement strategies may
assist in preventing aggression (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force,
2008; Orlich et al., 2010).
4.3.3 | Policy
Finally, our findings have implications for school and national policy. The
APA Task Force on Classroom Violence Directed Against Teachers has
called for the establishment of an anonymous national registry for
reporting teacher‐directed aggression incidents to allow researchers to
| 9
better understand the nature of this issue (Espelage et al., 2013; Reddy
et al., 2018). Systematic assessment of student and teacher‐directed
aggression may provide a more accurate sense of prevalence,
antecedents, behaviors, and consequences and reduce inaction that
results when incidents of physical aggression occur. At the school level,
clearly stated policies clarifying roles and expectations regarding who is
responsible for intervening in fights (e.g., school security officers,
teachers) are essential in ensuring appropriate staff handle such
incidents and minimize health and legal consequences. Discipline
policies should be feasible for teachers and administrators to carry
out consistently and with minimal disruption to learning, as well as
appropriate to the seriousness of the infraction (APA Zero Tolerance
Task Force, 2008).
5 | CO NCL USION
Teacher‐directed violence is a significant yet understudied global issue
requiring our attention. Assessment of antecedents, behaviors, and
consequences of physical violence directed toward teachers contributes
to our understanding of context, perpetrators, and patterns related to
these incidents and gives voice to teachers experiencing school violence.
Findings from this initial investigation underscore the need for
replication efforts and new directions for research.
ORCI D
Susan D. McMahon http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3710-8811
Dorothy L. Espelage http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0658-2067
R E F E R E N CE S
Allen, J. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Aggression and violence: Definitions
and distinctions. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of violence and
aggression (pp. 3–16). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California (2016). The right to
remain a student: How California school polices fail to protect and
serve. CA: Linnea Nelson, Victor Leung, & Jessica Cobb. https://
www.aclunc.org/publications/right‐remain‐student‐how‐ca‐school‐
policies‐fail‐protect‐and‐serve
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008).
Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary
review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852–862.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.63.9.852
Anderman, E. M., Eseplage, D. L., Reddy, L. A., McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A.,
Lane, K. L., … Reynolds, C. (2018). Teachers’ reactions to experiences of
violence: An attributional analysis. Social Psychology of Education, 21,
621–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐018‐9438‐x
Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., & Estrada, J. N. (2009). School violence and
theoretically atypical schools: The principal’s centrality in orchestrat-
ing safe schools. American educational research journal, 46, 423–461.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208329598
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
Beger, R. R. (2002). Expansion of police power in public schools and the
vanishing rights of students. Social Justice, 29, 119–130. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/29768123
10 | MCMAHON
Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture,
neighborhood, family, school, and gender. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate
descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and
empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310995/pdf/jaba00
084‐0079.pdf
Bounds, C., & Jenkins, L. N. (2016). Teacher‐directed violence in relation
to social support and work stress. Contemporary School Psychology, 20,
336–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688016‐0091‐0
Brooks, M. C., & Brooks, J. S. (2013). What can school leaders do about
violence in schools? Journal of Curriculum & Pedagogy, 10, 115–118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2013.84962
Codding, R. S., Feinberg, A. B., Dunn, E. K., & Pace, G. M. (2005). Effects of
immediate performance feedback on implementation of behavior
support plans. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 205–219.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.98‐04
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate:
Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College
Record, 111, 180–213. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ826002
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches (3rd.). Washington DC: Sage.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information‐processing
mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development,
67(3), 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131875
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D.,
Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence:
The impact of stage‐environment fit on young adolescents' experi-
ences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101.
Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L.,
McMahon, S. D., … Reddy, L. A. (2013). Understanding and preventing
violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national
research, practice, and policy agenda. American Psychologist, 68,
75–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031307
Fields, L. (2004). Handling student fights: Advice for teachers and
administrators. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 77, 108–110. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30185889
Frey, A., Ruchkin, V., Martin, A., & Schwab‐Stone, M. (2009). Adolescents
in transition: School and family characteristics in the development of
violent behaviors entering high school. Child Psychiatry and Human
Development, 40(1), 1–13.
Galand, B., Lecocq, C., & Philippot, P. (2007). School violence and teacher
professional disengagement. The British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 77, 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X114571
Gerberich, S. G., Nachreiner, N. M., Ryan, A. D., Church, T. R., McGovern,
P. M., Geisser, M. S., … Mongin, S. J. (2011). Violence against
educators: A population‐based study. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 53, 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.
0b013e31820c3fa1
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, N. C.
(2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a
national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0022427804271931
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative
content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the
development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14(1), 13–24.
Kulik, J. A., & Mahler, H. I. M. (1990). Stress and affiliation research: On taking
the laboratory to health field settings. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 12,
106–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm1203_2
LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace:
Normative and process‐oriented ethical approaches. Journal of
ET AL.
Business Ethics, 83(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐
007‐9608‐9
Levin, P. F., Martinez, M. Q., Walcott‐McQuigg, J., Chen, S. P., Amman, M., &
Guenette, C. (2006). Injuries associated with teacher assaults:
Magnitude, nature, cost, and outcome. AAOHN Journal, 54, 210–216.
https://doi.org/10.1177/216507990605400504
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). The principal and the school: What do principals
do? National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision
Journal, 27, 1–13. https://www.nationalforum.com
Martinez, A., McMahon, S. D., Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Reddy, L. A., &
Sanchez, B. (2016). Teachers’ experiences with multiple victimization:
Identifying demographic, cognitive, and contextual correlates. Journal of
School Violence, 15, 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2015.
1056879
McMahon, S.D., Davis, J. O., Peist, E., Bare, K., Espelage, D. L., Martinez, A.,
Anderman, E. M., … Reddy, L.A. (2019). Student verbal aggression
toward teachers: How do behavioral patterns unfold? Psychology of
Violence, https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000256. Advance online pub-
lication.
McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A., Espelage, D., Rose, C., Reddy, L. A., Lane, K., …
Anderman, E. M. (2014). Violence directed against teachers: Results
from a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 753–766. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pits.21777
McMahon, S. D., Reaves, S., McConnell, E. A., Peist, E., & Ruiz, L., APA Task
Force on Classroom Violence Directed Against Teachers. (2017). The
ecology of teachers’ experiences with violence and lack of adminis-
trative support. American Journal of Community Psychology, 60,
502–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12202
Meyer, H. A., Astor, R. A., & Behre, W. J. (2004). Teachers’ reasoning about
school fights, contexts, and gender: An expanded cognitive develop-
mental domain approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 45–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359‐1789(02)00115‐5
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd
edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Musu‐Gillette, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., Kemp, J., Diliberti, M., &
Oudekerk, B. A. (2018). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2017.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018036.pdf
National Center for Education Information. (2011). Profiles of teachers in
the U.S. 2011. Washington, DC: C. E. Feistritzer.
Newberry, M. (2010). Identified phases in the building and maintaining of
positive teacher‐student relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
1695–1703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.022
Newcomer, L. L., & Lewis, T. J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 168–181. https://doi.
org/10.1177/10634266040120030401
Noguera, P. A. (2003). Schools, prisons, and social implications
of punishment: Rethinking disciplinary practices. Theory into Practice, 42,
341–350. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4204_12
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H.
(2010). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction (9th ed.).
Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we
improve school discipline? Educational Researcher, 39, 48–58. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357618
Reddy, L., Espelage, D. L., Anderman, E., Kanrich, J., & McMahon, S. (2018).
Addressing violence against educators through measurement and
research. Journal of Aggression & Violent Behavior, 42, 9–28. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.006
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy‐supportive
teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School
Journal, 106(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1086/501484
Theriot, M. T., & Dupper, D. R. (2010). Student discipline problems and the
transition from elementary to middle school. Education and Urban
Society, 42(2), 205–222.
MCMAHON ET AL. | 11

Tiesman, H. M., Hendricks, S., Konda, S., & Hartley, D. (2014). Yariv, E. (2009). Students’ attitudes on the boundaries of teachers'
Physical assaults among education workers: Findings from a authority. School Psychology International, 30(1), 92–111. https://doi.
statewide study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, org/10.1177/0143034308101852
56, 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000147
Virués‐Ortega, J. (2010). Applied behavior analytic intervention for autism in
early childhood: Meta‐analysis, meta‐regression and dose‐response meta‐
analysis of multiple outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 387–399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.008 How to cite this article: McMahon SD, Peist E,
Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., & Shores, R. E. (1995). A descriptive analysis of Davis JO, et al. Physical aggression toward
aggressive behavior in classrooms for children with emotional and teachers: Antecedents, behaviors, and consequences.
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 87–105.
Aggresive Behavior. 2019;1–11.
Wilson, C. M., Douglas, K. S., & Lyon, D. R. (2011). Violence against teachers:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21870
Prevalence and consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26,
2353–2371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510383027