Scapegoating and classroom dynamics: Perspectives on the theoretical significance of social groups—Commentary on Atria et al. and Mahdavi & Smith

Abstract

Mahdavi and Smith (2007) and Atria et al. (2007) address Schuster's (1999) claim that every class needs a whipping boy or scapegoat. In the present discussion, we focus on the concept of scapegoating, both as it was originally proposed by Allport (1954), and in terms of Schuster's more recent and rather narrower interpretation. We argue that social psychological approaches to scapegoating would not automatically predict that there will be a scapegoat in every class. Rather, the concept of scapegoating is broader and covers a range of social contexts and social groups. Future research on bullying and scapegoating needs to focus on a diverse range of social milieu (e.g., year groups rather than classrooms, intergroup relations outside of school) and social factors (e.g., ethnicity, gender) to identify the ways in which work on social group dynamics and relations can inform approaches to the study and prevention of bullying in schools. Researchers should also explore why some classes, schools, and societies have a greater number of scapegoats than others.