IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Perceived Discrimination and Students’ Behavioural Changes: The Role of Cultural
Background and Societal Influence
Somasundar M
Maharaj Vinayak Global University, Amer, Dhand, Jaipur

31

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Abstract
Discrimination among students in educational institutes is one of the key reasons for their
behavioural changes. Research has increasingly recognized the discriminating behaviour ofteachers, but the impact of perceived discrimination by teachers on students’ behaviouralchanges has not been investigated enough. Applying a theoretical model based on
Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST), the present study aimed
to investigate the manner in which students’ behavioural changes were determined by theirteachers’ perceived discrimination, after knowing family background and how this relationshipwas moderated by societal influence and cultural background. A sample survey of 215 class 8
to class 10 students studying in rural and urban schools located in Krishnagiri district in Tamil
Nadu, India was administered through questionnaires and partial least squares-structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to evaluate the gathered data. Overall, perceived
teacher discrimination of students based on their caste, creed, and financial backgroundsignificantly influenced students behaviour. The association between students’ behaviouralchanges and perceived discrimination was significantly influenced by cultural background.
However, societal influence did not significantly change the effect of perceived students’discrimination on their behavioural changes.
Keywords: behavioural changes, cultural background, family background, perceived
discrimination, students’ societal influence

32

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Effective pedagogical environments have a direct connection with students’ interactive
behaviour. Perceived discrimination is a common practice across educational institutions(Hagiwara et al., 2017) and contributes to the gap in the caste and creed concerning theinteractive behaviour of students (Utsey et al., 2008; Mittal, 2020). Perceived discrimination
can be defined as a perceived approach wherein personal characteristics (e.g. physicalappearance and sexual orientation), attributes (e.g. gender and race), and other social factors
are used to differentiate or exclude a person or a group of persons (Giurgiu et al., 2015). The
discrimination of students by teachers based on caste and creed is considered as differential
and biased treatment (Carter et al., 2017). Multiple negative outcomes such as mental healthand physical health deteriorations, negative social interactions, etc., are primarily caused byperceived discrimination (Brondolo et al., 2009). The classroom environment is compromised
and interactive behaviour between students and teachers is affected negatively by teachers’
discriminating behaviour (Jennings and Greenberg, 2009). Discriminatory attitudes of teachers
result in students’ reduced sense of belonging, disengagement from classroom teaching all ofwhich can hinder students’ behaviour in educational institutions (Kidger et al., 2016). In
addition, previous studies have stated that discriminating behaviour in educational institutes
affects the students’ academic performance and psychological behaviour (Alvarez et al., 2004;
Cogburn et al. 2011; Sisask et al., 2014; Banerjee et al., 2018).
Factors that might buffer or prompt discrimination among students and the influence ofteachers’ discrimination on students’ learning outcomes and behavioural changes must berecognized by teachers and counsellors (Sehgal et al., 2017). Among Indians, cultural
backgrounds and societal factors affect sensitivity to perceived discrimination (Wu et al., 2015;
Yasui et al., 2015). Thus, the experience of perceived discrimination is not determined by casteand creed, but by the overlap of cultural background and societal influence (Assari and
Lankarani, 2017). As the value system, attributions and standards of each intersectional groupare unique, the causes and effects of the same perceived discriminating experiences may bedifferent (Caldwell et al., 2013).
Several studies have illustrated that students face discrimination based on religion, socioeconomic status, and gender which includes religion-based bullying of students by teachers,
discrimination in seat arrangements and exclusion based on gender (Ramachandran andNaorem, 2013; Dupper et al., 2015; Robnett, 2016). Caste-based discrimination was evident inschools from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh where students were denied from participating in
extracurricular activities such as sports, cultural activities, and so forth. (Dongre, 2017). The
discrimination of primary school students based on socio-demographic factors like age, family
background and parenting styles were reported in Mangalore, India (Joseph et al., 2021).
Although there are abundant studies on the conflict-inducing approach of teachers, studies
focusing on the discriminating behaviour of teachers are scarce and scattered (Ali et al., 2019).
Despite the fact that some studies have considered the relationship between teacher-student
relationship and students’ perceived discrimination, the effect of perceived discrimination byteachers on students’ behavioural changes has not been investigated enough. In addition,
though perceived discrimination is quite prevalent among students (Rosenbloom and Way,
2004), investigation regarding differences in family background, cultural background andsocietal influence concerning the impact of teachers’ discrimination on students’ behaviouralchanges is limited (Bryan et al., 2018). Moreover, studies that developed and utilized an
integrated framework investigating the components (environmental and individual
characteristics) that control the consequences of perceived discrimination on students’behavioural changes are not adequate (Williams & Bryan, 2013; McGee & Pearman, 2014).
Furthermore, studies with larger sample sizes to test moderations of perceived students’33

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

discrimination on students’ behavioural changes are needed. The present study is unique
because it explores students’ behavioural changes.
Thus, to fill the relevant research gaps, the present study aimed to explore the effect ofperceived discrimination by teachers on behavioural changes among students after controllingfor family background. Besides, the study aimed to assess whether cultural background andsocietal influence controlled the association between students’ behavioural changes andperceived discrimination. Identification and examination of elements that control theconsequences of teachers’ perceived discrimination on students’ behavioural changes can
support the formulation of relevant precautionary measures. Considering the past studies on
sensitivity to discrimination (Wildhagen, 2011; Slobodin et al., 2021), this study anticipated awider impact of perceived discrimination on students’ behavioural changes in the presence ofmoderators.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Utilizing integrated frameworks that highlight the mechanisms and cause and effectrelationship, is vital for academic performance. This is specifically applicable when student
outcomes are considered because of risk factors based on individual and environmental
characteristics. Hence, this study turns to the Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems
Theory (PVEST) (Spencer, 1995), which posits the role of contextual influence (social, culturaland family) on the development of young people (Spencer 1999). In the context of the PVEST
framework, the significance of examining risk factors (e.g., caste-based discrimination) andhow they have been linked to negative outcomes has been highlighted (Spencer et al., 2003).
The effect of perceived school-based discrimination of students by teachers is examined in thisstudy and it is theorized as total stress involvement in the PVEST framework. Such stressengagement might be associated with negative outcomes for youth in academic settings. Thenagain, perceived caste-based discrimination of youth might be linked to more adaptive
outcomes by the protective element of culture-family socialization.
Discrimination as a risk factor for behavioural outcomes. The differential treatment due torace, religion, caste, creed and economic backgrounds is termed discrimination (Smart
Richman and Leary, 2009). Unfortunately, in the present scenario, educational institutions havebecome one of the common spaces for all kinds of student discrimination. Caste and economic
backgrounds are listed as the main bases of discrimination in the Indian education system(Desai and Kulkarni, 2008). Discrimination based on caste, creed and economic backgrounds
in Indian educational institutions has been prevalent for decades. The physical elimination andbiased attitude of teachers towards the predicament of ostracized pupils is forcing several
learners to behave negatively and despite functional preventive interventions, little is being
done by administrations to address the issue (Sitlhou, 2017). Any such injustice taking placein educational institutions affects the academic outcomes, psychological health, and school
engagement of the students.
A negative teacher-student relationship, including a perceived bias, predicts poorer behaviouralfunctioning in adolescents (Hamre and Pianta, 2001). Jain and Narayan (2011) highlighted thediscrimination faced by the students based on their religious beliefs. Ramachandran andNaorem, (2013) pointed out that the students belonging to lower caste were not permitted toseat adjacent to an upper caste student. Further, the biases faced by backward caste students
were demonstrated by Kurian (2015). Additionally, Wenz and Hoenig (2020) also illustrated
the discrimination against the students. However, all these studies failed to assess the impacts
on student outcomes. Few studies like Ingul et al. (2012) reported that the psychological34

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

adjustment due to bias led to negative perceptions about the school that in turn resulted in
reduced students’ interactive behaviour. Rueger and Jenkins (2014) highlighted diminishedphysical and mental health as a result of discrimination among students. Thus, persistent
discrimination based on caste, creed and economic background ultimately results in negative
behavioural outcomes, even in the education sector (Ali et al., 2019). The below-mentioned
hypothesis is formulated based on the discussion:
H1: There is a significant impact of perceived discrimination of students by teachers based on
caste, creed and economic backgrounds on students’ behavioural changes
Role of family background, cultural background and societal factors. Based on theacademic resilience outlook, moderating the relationship is one of the individual andenvironmental characteristics that affect the association between outcomes and risk factors(García-Izquierdo et al., 2018). Students’ overall success and academic performance isdetermined by their family background, which is largely expressed as the socioeconomic status(Adeyemo and Kuyoro, 2013). Besides, a substantial association between the prevalence of
behavioural problems in students and their family background in terms of parents or caretakers
being alcoholic or absent is evident in literature (Jogdand and Naik, 2014). Discrimination
among students is reportedly predicted by a low socio-economic status (Jackson et al., 2012).
Previous studies have examined family background as an individual variable that may modify
student outcomes (Lee et al., 2015). Students belonging to marginalized families are more
likely to experience behavioural changes caused by perceived discrimination by teachers(OECD, 2017).
Researchers have emphasized that cultural background has theoretical groundwork in the social
identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), theorizing that the risk outcome of perceived
discrimination may be mitigated for individuals who identify with their cultural background(Phinney, 2003). However, in the context of educational institutions, previous studies alsosuggest that identification with a cultural background may result in negative student outcomesdue to increased awareness of negative labels and little importance of positive societal
influence on the cultural background (Oyserman, 2008; Wildhagen, 2011). For instance, in alongitudinal study by Cheng and Klugman (2010), students possessing a minority cultural
background had lower connectedness to schools. Banerjee et al. (2018) highlighted theprevalence of discrimination by teachers based on students’ cultural background, whichbuffered the influence of perceived discrimination on students’ learning outcomes. Although
perceived discrimination may exist in multiple contexts, all forms represent different degrees
of risks to various types of social identity needs, which relate to changes in behavioural
outcomes (Verkuyten et al., 2019). Consistent with the role of these factors in existing
literature, this study offers the following hypothesis.
H2: Cultural background and societal influence moderates the effect of perceived
discrimination by teachers on students’ behavioural changes
The conceptual framework proposed here builds on the perceived discrimination of students
that has been supported by theoretical perspectives to act as a direct antecedent of students’behavioural changes when controlling for family background. The alternative frameworkbuilds on the idea that cultural background and societal influence will moderate the association
between students’ behavioural changes and their perceived discrimination. These propositions
are illustrated in Figure 1.

35

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Figure 1
Theoretical Framework of the Present Study

Materials and Methods
Sampling Procedure and Survey Administration
The present study used a quantitative research method and adopted a random sampling
procedure to collect data through a survey done on school students from class 8 to class 10
studying in one rural school and one urban school located in Krishnagiri district in Tamil Nadu,
India. In total, 215 questionnaires were found useful for further analysis. The student sample
included 116 males (54.0%) and 99 females (46.0%). Most of the students were aged between
16 and 18 years (63.3%). The sample included 113 class 10 students (52.5%), 58 class 9
students (27.0%) and 44 class 8 students (20.5%), respectively. The student sample included
66 family heads as skilled workers (30.7%), 60 as farmers (27.9%), 44 as unskilled workers(20.7%), 39 as government employees (18.1%) and 6 were unemployed (2.8%).
Research Instrument
This study included one exogenous variable: Perceived discrimination of students. The
endogenous variable was students’ behavioural change. Cultural background and societal
factors are used as moderating variables. Family background is used as the control variable.
This study employed a structured questionnaire consisting of 30 items that measured fivevariables used in the study. Some questionnaire items were negatively framed to check the
response bias. The first couple of statements were designed to understand perceived students’discrimination by adapting eight items from Fox and Stallworth (2005), Gelisli (2007) and Ali
et al. (2019). Meanwhile, to measure behavioural changes of students, six items were adaptedfrom Ali et al. (2019). Besides, societal factors and cultural background were explained by six
and three items by Soric (2011). Moreover, to assess family background, three categorical
items were adapted by Sun and Shek (2012) and Ali et al. (2019). All the variables, except for
the family background, were assessed through a 5-point Likert scale, wherein strongly disagree
was indicated by 1 and strongly agree was indicated by 5.
Data Analysis
The partial least squares (PLS)-structured equation modelling (SEM) technique was used toanalyse the data, inspect the latent constructs used in the measurement model, and test theinteractions between latent constructs and moderators in the structural model, as indicated in36

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Figure 1. A three-step process was followed in which R2 and sizes of effects for “perceived
teachers’ discrimination” on “students’ behavioural changes” were evaluated. First, the model
was run without the moderators (cultural background and societal influence); secondly, thedirect effects of “cultural background” and “societal influence” on students’ behaviouralchanges were measured; and thirdly, “cultural background” and “societal influence” wereincorporated and moderator effect was assessed. Following guidelines from Streukens andLeroi-Werelds (2016) for estimating the statistical significance of path estimates using PLSSEM, bootstrapping technique was executed using 10,000 sub-samples to increase the degreeof precision. SmartPLS and IBM SPSS were employed to analyze the data and generate theresults.
Results
Analysis of the Measurement Model
The measurement model was assessed by the study to ensure relevant reliability, composite
reliability, and construct validity of the scales used. The various items of latent variables were
subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess overall fitness of the measurement
model. The result of the factor analysis of the study constructs is illustrated in Table 1. Averagevariance extracted (AVE) values and factor loading values were found greater than 0.50,
thereby ensuring convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Composite reliability (CR)of the variables was above the threshold of 0.70 and it ranged between 0.78 and 0.81 (Hair et al.,2017). It can be inferred that constructs had high internal consistency for items associated witheach variable. The remaining constructs were eliminated as the AVE values were less than 0.50.

37

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Table 1
Reliability and Validity Outcomes
Cronbach's
Alpha
0.65

Latent constructs
Perceived teachers’ discrimination
DS1 Teachers don’t answer my questions in theclass
DS3 Teachers make disrespectful comments
towards me in the class because of my caste
DS8 I feel that teachers always pay attention to
students of higher caste
Cultural background
CF1 I have some beliefs that affect my interaction
with students of other caste
CF3 The curriculum provided by my school isbased on different cultural backgrounds
Societal influence
SF3 I am disciplined at school because I am
disciplined at home
SF4 I interact with students of different caste
SF5 The society has been the primary influence in
my life regarding how I feel about people of othercasteStudents’ behavioural changes
BCS1 I am not interested in listening to lectures in
the class
BCS2 I like to talk to my friends during the class
BCS5 I do not submit class assignments

Factorloading

CR

AVE

0.81

0.59

0.80

0.66

0.78

0.54

0.78

0.54

0.81
0.82
0.66
0.60
0.76
0.87
0.60
0.74
0.69
0.78
0.60
0.78
0.69
0.74

Note: CR=composite reliability; AVE=average variance extracted
A test of discriminant validity was assessed for all construct variables in the model. The
analysis presented in Table 2 shows that the AVE square root values of each construct werehigher than the multiple correlation values for the respective constructs, which demonstrated
the discriminant validity of all construct variables in the model (Hair et al., 2017).
Table 2Discriminant Validity Indicators
Construct
Behavioural changes (BCS)
Cultural background (CB)
Perceived teachers’ discrimination (DS)Societal influence (SF)

BCS
0.73
0.45
0.64
0.70

CB

DS

SF

0.81
0.37
0.34

0.77
0.62

0.74

The Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion was also used to assess discriminant validity. The
analysis presented in Table 3 demonstrates that the HTMT values were below 0.90, thereby
confirming the absence of any issues on discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Thus, the variables were distinctly different from each other. Therefore, discriminant validity
was achieved.

38

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Table 3Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
Behaviouralchanges
Behaviouralchanges
Culturalbackground
Perceived
discrimination
Societal influence

Culturalbackground

Discrimination

Societal
influence

0.88

-

0.82
0.88

0.64

0.83

0.61

Analysis of the Structural Model
Based on the assessment of the measurement model, the reliabilities and validities of thepresent model are confirmed, from which the structural relationships and significance of the
hypotheses are established. The Q2 value was greater than zero for the endogenous construct,indicating an adequate predictive relevance of the model (Geisser, 1975) (Table 4). The levelof perceived students’ discrimination can be explained by 61.0% variation in students’behavioural changes, thereby explaining nearly moderate to high variance (Chin, 1998) (Table
4).
Further, the PLS-SEM allows for identifying the significance of the relationships between thevariables. In considering their effect on each other, the association between students’behavioural changes and perceived discrimination showed a highly (0.29) significant effect inthe model (Figure 2), thereby confirming H1. Concerning the influence of moderating variableson the association between dependent and independent latent variables, the results showed that
cultural background significantly but negatively moderates the effect of perceived students’discrimination on behavioural changes (β = -0.12, T = 2.13, p < 0.001), implying that cultural
background can significantly reduce the effect of perceived students’ discrimination on their
behavioural changes. However, it was also observed that societal influence did not significantly
increase or decrease the effect of perceived students’ discrimination on their behaviouralchanges (β = 0.03, t = 0.70, p > 0.05) (Table 4).
Table 4Structural Paths and Related Indicators
DV

IV

BCS

DS
H1
DS*CB
H2
DS*SF

***

Hypothesis

R2

4.47
2.13

Significance(result)
Supported
Supported

0.70

Not supported-

Path estimates

t-Value

0.29***-0.12*
0.03

Q2

0.61 0.30-

p < 0.001, * p < 0.05

The PLS-SEM allows for further analysis through bootstrapping (see Table 5) in identifying
the direct relationships between the variables. Based on PLS-SEM procedure of direct effects,
it is established that the direct effects (cultural background → students’ behavioural changes:
β= 0.18, t = 3.39; societal influence → students’ behavioural changes: β = 0.43, t = 7.86; family
background → students’ behavioural changes: β = 0.13, t = 2.01) were significant.

39

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Table 5
Bootstrapping Direct Effects at 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs)βCultural background -> Behavioural changes
Family background -> Behavioural changes
Societal influence -> Behavioural changes

0.18
0.13
0.43

SampleStandard Deviation(STDEV)
0.05
0.05
0.05

T
P
Statistics Values
3.39
2.01
7.86

0.00
0.04
0.00

Figure 2
SEM Model for the Study

Moderating Effects
The role of cultural background and societal influence as moderators between perceived
discrimination of students was their behavioural changes were tested (Table 6). An effect sizeof predictors in each case was assessed following Cohen’s f2 criteria. The results demonstratethat the second case and third case in which direct and the moderating (cultural background)interaction effects were created, reported a higher effect size in comparison to other scenarios.
The results indicated an f2 value of 0.12 reflecting a small effect size (Cohen, 1988); thereby
partially confirming hypothesis H2.
Table 6Moderation Effects
State of model testing
Model without cultural background
Model without societal influence
Model with cultural background as a direct effectModel with societal influence as a direct effectModel with cultural background as a moderator
Model with societal influence as a moderator

40

Effect size
0.031
0.025
0.074
0.287
0.121
0.003

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Discussion
While research has consistently focused on discrimination based on caste and creed, less isknown about specific discrimination sources in different settings, including institutional
contexts. The present study focused specifically on perceived teacher discrimination. The
present research analysed the effects of teachers’ perceived discrimination on students’behavioural changes when controlling for family background. Besides, this study examined
whether cultural background and societal influence moderated the effects of school-based
discrimination on students’ behavioural changes. This study focused on the Indian sample tounderstand how perceived teacher discrimination based on caste, creed and financial
background of students may be associated with their behavioural changes.
In the present study, specifically, the empirical evidence that perceived discrimination byteachers (0.29) significantly affects students’ behavioural changes suggests that higher
discrimination strengthens behavioural changes in students. This finding is indicative of
declining in students’ interest to listen in the classes as a result of discrimination. Alfaro et al.
(2009) proposed similar arguments by stating that students who suffered discrimination byteachers showed little interest in their studies, curiosity and perseverance. Additionally,
discrimination also significantly affects students’ interest to obey rules in the classroom. Smalls
et al. (2007) established that discriminated students possibly exhibit truant behaviour at school.
Discriminating behaviour is intolerable, even among educated professionals, and adversely
affects student outcomes (Borrazzo, 2005; Haider and Hussain, 2014). Here, this finding
contributes to the previous studies which reported that perceived discrimination by teachers isa basic determinant of behavioural changes in students (Huynh and Fuligni 2010; Jain andNarayan, 2011; Dupper et al., 2015). The exclusion and discrimination based on caste werealso highlighted by Dostie and Jayaraman (2006). This kind of discrimination was also pointed
out by Ramachandran and Naorem (2013) who highlighted segregated seating arrangements ofbackward and forward caste students in a classroom as an example of perceived teacher
discrimination. Moreover, Kumar (2016) claimed that the humiliation and discrimination inschools based on the caste of the students was a reality in the Indian education system.
Additionally, girls in the backward caste were considered as less fit to study (Kurian, 2015).
Murray-Harvey and Slee (2007) and Stephan and Stephan (2013) argued that factors that
profoundly affect students’ psychological behaviour and learning originate from thediscriminating attitude of teachers. However, the present finding is different from the findings
by Bibi and Karim (2015) and Ali et al. (2019) where it was observed that students’ learning
outcomes and psychology were not influenced by teachers’ perceived discrimination.
Moreover, regarding perceived teacher discrimination, this study empirically established thatthe association between students’ behavioural outcomes and perceived discrimination was
controlled by cultural background in a significant, but negative manner. This finding
established that the effects of teachers’ perceived discrimination on students’ behaviour would
be mitigated by cultural background. This outcome is consistent with Banerjee et al. (2018),
who posited that the influence of perceived discrimination on academic performances ofstudents was weakened by cultural socialization. The cultural background has been associatedwith better performance of school students. Assari and Caldwell (2018) reported that culturalsocialization diminished the risk for greater behavioural changes in students due toexperiencing discrimination in the classroom by teachers. The authors argued that individualand environmental intersection is required to comprehend the role of discrimination on
students’ behavioural changes (Chavous et al., 2008). Theoretical perspectives on socialization
might facilitate our understanding of why cultural background may matter in the influences of41

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

perceived discrimination on students’ developmental results (e.g., perceived teacher
discrimination on students’ behavioural changes). Cultural background shapes socializationand the different levels of teacher-student interaction (Brown and Harris, 2012). School
students receive negative perceptions through caste- and creed-based discrimination, but theyreceive positive perceptions through cultural background, resulting in positive outcomes(Banerjee et al., 2018). Previous studies suggest that family background or socioeconomic
status (Assari and Caldwell, 2017; Hudson et al., 2012) and cultural background (Assari et al.,2015; Beatty Moody et al., 2016) change experience and sensitivity to perceived
discrimination. Interpretation of unclear or arguable situations depends on various factors
including cultural identity that shapes the prominence of culture in gradual encounters (Sellers
et al., 2006). However, the present finding is different from previous studies that found nocontrolling consequence of cultural background in the association between students’ academic
outcomes and teachers’ caste- and creed-based perceived discrimination (Neblett et al., 2006).
Furthermore, the present results for societal influence was not significant, indicating thatsocietal influence was less of a concern in the present sample. This could be because of aparticular sample of the present dataset, where information was gathered from respondents ofthe same locality and ethnicity.
Conclusion
With the survey data collected from class 8 to class 10 students of rural and urban schools in
Krishnagiri district of Tamil Nadu, India, the present study explored the effect of perceived
discrimination by teachers based on students’ caste, creed and financial background on their
behavioural changes how this effect is strengthened in the presence of cultural background andsocietal influence. Overall, the present study revealed that perceived teacher discrimination
significantly leads to negative behavioural changes in students when controlling for family
background. Moreover, the present study identified the moderating effect of cultural
background on the direct association between students’ behavioural changes and teachers’
perceived discrimination.
Implications
The present study offers valuable insights for theoretical implications and practical
implications. The present study adds to the existing literature concerning the negative effect ofperceived teacher discrimination on behavioural changes in school students. Despite priorstudies having examined the conflict-inducing approach of teachers based on students’ religion,socio-economic status, and gender (Neblett et al., 2006), few studies have analysed thediscriminating approach of teachers towards behavioural changes in students with regards totheir cultural background, societal influence and family background (Ali et al., 2019). The
present study provides evidence that cultural background may buffer the negative behavioural
outcomes for school students as a result of perceived teacher discrimination, suggesting that
cultural socialization may balance the effects of discrimination in the school context. Besides,
the present results indicate that family background may be associated with behavioural changes
in students due to perceived discrimination. Schools might include educational practices witha focus on culture to mitigate discriminating behaviour among students and foster better
psychological and academic outcomes.
Recommendations
Since the present findings reported that perceived teacher discrimination adversely affects
students’ behavioural changes, school authorities should emphasize sources that may lead todiscriminating behaviour of teachers. Stricter actions towards intolerance to discrimination in42

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

terms of termination, suspension, or demotion should be effective to regulate these sources.
Several interventions should be implemented by school authorities to alleviate perceived
teacher discrimination. Schools should prioritize a diverse workforce of teachers. Finally,
training programs should be conducted to educate teachers to mitigate blunt reactions and better
handle discriminating attitudes. Repeated mistreatment is considered to emotionally affectstudents (Baldwin and Baldwin, 1986). Although eliminating negative interactions between
teachers and students seems unrealistic, bias in teachers’ approach towards students could be
mitigated.
Limitations and Future Research Directives
The present study emphasises on school-based students’ perception of teacher discriminationand their views on their behavioural changes. Future research should consider the perceptionsof teachers and parents to provide in-depth insights for understanding the impact ofschool-based perceived discrimination on students’ behavioural outcomes and decrease theprobability of bias in self-perceived response. In addition, the present study did not control fororganizational and personal factors that could be a reason for perceived teacher discrimination.
Future studies may emphasize additional factors, like institutional strategies, which tend tocontrol the association between students’ behavioural changes and teachers’ perceived
discrimination. This, in turn, would enable to comprehend framing institutional policies
effective in regulating teachers’ behaviour and attitude. Moreover, the cross-sectional aspect
restricts the generalizability of findings as it provides an understanding of what is currently
happening. Therefore, longitudinal studies should be conducted to understand the relationshipbetween perceived teacher discrimination based on caste, creed and financial background andstudents’ behavioural changes. Efforts must be made to understand how such a relationship isbuffered by cultural-societal intersection and family background through different phases ofthe school level. A longitudinal study design on perceived discrimination might aid inunderstanding the nature and influence of the moderating factors.

43

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

References
Adeyemo, A. B., & Kuyoro, S. O. (2013). Investigating the effect of students socioeconomic/family background on students academic performance in tertiary
institutions using Decision Tree Algorithm. ActaSATECH, 4(2), 61–78.
Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Gonzales-Backen, M. A., Bámaca, M. Y., & Zeiders, K.
H. (2009). Latino adolescents' academic success: The role of discrimination, academic
motivation, and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 941-962.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.007
Ali, M. R., Ashraf, B. N., & Shuai, C. (2019). Teachers’ conflict-inducing attitudes and theirrepercussions on students’ psychological health and learning outcomes. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(14), 2534.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142534
Alvarez, K. M., Kenny, M. C., Donohue, B., & Carpin, K. M. (2004). Why are professionals
failing to initiate mandated reports of child maltreatment, and are there any
empirically based training programs to assist professionals in the reporting
process?. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 9(5), 563–578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.07.001
Assari, S., & Caldwell, C. H. (2017). Neighborhood safety and major depressive disorder in anational sample of black youth; gender by ethnic differences. Children, 4(2), 14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/children4020014
Assari, S., & Caldwell, C. H. (2018). Teacher discrimination reduces school performance ofAfrican American youth: role of gender. Brain Sciences, 8(10), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8100183
Assari, S., & Lankarani, M. M. (2017). Discrimination and psychological distress: genderdifferences among Arab Americans. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8, 23.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00023
Assari, S., Watkins, D. C., & Caldwell, C. H. (2015). Race attribution modifies theassociation between daily discrimination and major depressive disorder among blacks:
the role of gender and ethnicity. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health
Disparities, 2(2), 200-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-014-0064-9
Baldwin, J. D., & Baldwin, J. I. (1986). Behaviour Principles in Everyday Life. Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Banerjee, M., Byrd, C., & Rowley, S. (2018). The relationships of school-based
discrimination and ethnic-racial socialization to African American adolescents’achievement outcomes. Social sciences, 7(10), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7100208
Beatty Moody, D. L., Waldstein, S. R., Tobin, J. N., Cassells, A., Schwartz, J. C., &Brondolo, E. (2016). Lifetime racial/ethnic discrimination and ambulatory bloodpressure: The moderating effect of age. Health Psychology, 35(4), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000270
Bibi, Z., & Karim, J. (2015). Causes & Consequences of Interpersonal Conflicts: A Survey ofLabor in Public Sector of Baluchistan, Pakistan. Journal of Managerial
Sciences, 9(1), 102–112.

44

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Borrazzo, M. E. (2005). The Impact of Teacher Conflict Styles on Student Discipline
Outcomes: A Triangulation Study of the Symbolic Interaction of the Teacher as Agent
within the School Organizational Structure: A Case Study of Teacher Conflict Style
Selection and the Discipline Outcomes That Result from Each Conflict Style. UnitedStates of America, Bloomington, Indiana.
Brondolo, E., Ver Halen, N. B., Pencille, M., Beatty, D., & Contrada, R. J. (2009). Copingwith racism: A selective review of the literature and a theoretical and methodologicalcritique. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 32(1), 64–88.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-008-9193-0
Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (Eds.). (2012). Social origins of depression: A study ofpsychiatric disorder in women (Vol. 2). Routledge, New York, NY, USA.
Bryan, J., Williams, J. M., Kim, J., Morrison, S. S., & Caldwell, C. H. (2018). Perceived
teacher discrimination and academic achievement among urban Caribbean Black andAfrican American youth: School bonding and family support as protective
factors. Urban Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918806959
Caldwell, C. H., Antonakos, C. L., Tsuchiya, K., Assari, S., Loney, D., & Hill, E. (2013).
Masculinity as a moderator of discrimination and parenting on depressive symptoms
and drinking behaviours among nonresident African-American fathers. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 14(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029105
Carter, P. L., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M. I., & Pollock, M. (2017). You can’t fix what you
don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial discipline disparities. Urban
Education, 52(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350
Chavous, T. M., Rivas-Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. (2008). Gender
matters, too: the influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on
academic engagement outcomes among African Americanadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 637–654.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.637
Cheng, S., & Klugman, J. (2010). School racial composition and biracial adolescents' school
attachment. The Sociological Quarterly, 51(1), 150–178.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01166.x
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Marcoulides (Ed.), Methodology for business and management. Modern methods forbusiness research (p. 295-336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah,
New Jersey.
Cogburn, C. D., Chavous, T. M., & Griffin, T. M. (2011). School-based racial and gender
discrimination among African American adolescents: Exploring gender variation in
frequency and implications for adjustment. Race and Social Problems, 3(1), 25–37.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-011-9040-8
Desai, S., & Kulkarni, V. (2008). Changing educational inequalities in India in the context ofaffirmative action. Demography, 45(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0001
Dongre, T. (2017). Caste discrimination in primary education: a study of Telangana andAndhra Pradesh work on caste discrimination.pdf. The Expression: An International
Multidisciplinary e-Journal,
3(3).https://www.academia.edu/33523656/caste_discrimination_in_primary_educatio
n_a_study_of_telangana_and_andhra_pradesh_work_on_caste_discrimination_pdf.

45

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Dostie, B., & Jayaraman, R. (2006). Determinants of school enrollment in Indianvillages. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(2), 405–421.
https://doi.org/10.1086/497006
Dupper, D. R., Forrest-Bank, S., & Lowry-Carusillo, A. (2015). Experiences of religious
minorities in public school settings: Findings from focus groups involving Muslim,
Jewish, Catholic, and Unitarian Universalist youths. Children and Schools, 37(1), 37–
45. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdu029
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3),382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying. Exploring links between bullying
and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 66, 438–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.01.002
García-Izquierdo, M., Ríos-Risquez, M. I., Carrillo-García, C., & Sabuco-Tebar, E. D. L. Á.
(2018). The moderating role of resilience in the relationship between academic
burnout and the perception of psychological health in nursing students. Educational
Psychology, 38(8), 1068–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1044944
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1),101–107.
Gelişli, Y. (2007). Effects of teachers’ attitudes and behaviour on students’ attitudes,
behaviour, and academic success in Turkey. International Journal of Educational
Reform, 16(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678790701600108
Giurgiu, R. L., Marica, M. A., & Ionescu, A. F. (2015). Students’ Perception ofDiscrimination Against Minorities. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 180,
338–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.126
Hagiwara, N., Slatcher, R. B., Eggly, S., & Penner, L. A. (2017). Physician racial bias andword use during racially discordant medical interactions. HealthCommunication, 32(4), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1138389
Haider, S. Z., & Hussain, A. (2014). Relationship between teacher factors and student
achievement: A correlational study of secondary schools. US-China Education
Review A, 4(7), 465–480.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated andexpanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory ofchildren's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child development, 72(2), 625–638.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301
Hudson, D. L., Bullard, K. M., Neighbors, H. W., Geronimus, A. T., Yang, J., & Jackson, J.
S. (2012). Are benefits conferred with greater socioeconomic position undermined by
racial discrimination among African American men?. Journal of Men's Health, 9(2),127–136.
Huynh, V. W. & Fuligni, A. J., (2010). Discrimination hurts: The academic, psychological,
and physical well-being of adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4),916–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00670.x

46

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Jackson, M. I., Kiernan, K., & McLanahan, S. (2012). Immigrant–native differences in childhealth: Does maternal education narrow or widen the gap?. Child Development, 83(5),1501–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01811.x
Jain, T., & Narayan, T. (2011). Incentive to discriminate? An experimental investigation ofteacher incentives in India. An Experimental Investigation of Teacher Incentives inIndia (April 20, 2011).
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social andemotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Jogdand, S. S., & Naik, J. (2014). Study of family factors in association with behaviour
problems amongst children of 6-18 years age group. International Journal of Applied
and Basic Medical Research, 4(2), 86-89.
Joseph, N., Sinha, U., & D’Souza, M. (2021). Assessment of determinants of behaviouralproblems among primary school children in Mangalore city of South India. Current
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01330-x
Kidger, J., Brockman, R., Tilling, K., Campbell, R., Ford, T., Araya, R., ... & Gunnell, D.
(2016). Teachers' wellbeing and depressive symptoms, and associated risk factors: A
large cross sectional study in English secondary schools. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 192, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.054
Lee, J. P., Lee, R. M., Hu, A. W., & Kim, O. M. (2015). Ethnic identity as a moderator
against discrimination for transracially and transnationally adopted Korean Americanadolescents. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 154–163.
Martinez Jr, C. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic successamong Latino youths. Hispanic Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 26(2), 128-151.
Mittal, D. (2020). Engaging with ‘Caste’: Curriculum, Pedagogy and Reception. Space andCulture, India, 8(1), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v8i1.615
Murray-Harvey, R., & Slee, P. T. (2007). Supportive and stressful relationships with teachers,
peers and family and their influence on students' social/emotional and academic
experience of school. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 17(2),
126–147. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.17.2.126
Neblett Jr, E. W., Philip, C. L., Cogburn, C. D., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African Americanadolescents’ discrimination experiences and academic achievement: Racialsocialization as a cultural compensatory and protective factor. Journal of Black
Psychology, 32(2), 199–218.
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students well-being. Retrived from:https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-iii/students-senseofbelonging-by-immigrant-background_9789264273856-table125-en.
Oyserman, D. (2008). Racial-ethnic self-schemas: Multidimensional identity-based
motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1186–1198.
Phinney, J. S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. Acculturation: Advances in Theory,
Measurement, and Applied Research, eds K. M. Chun, O. P. Balls, and G. Mrin.
American Psychological Association, Washington, pp. 63–81.

47

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Ramachandran, V., & Naorem, T. (2013). What it means to be a Dalit or tribal child in our
schools: A synthesis of a six-state qualitative study. Economic and Political weekly,
43–52.
Robnett, R. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to
STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 65-79.
Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African
American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth &Society, 35(4), 420–451.
Sehgal, P., Jeffries, J., & Rappaport, N. (2017). Combatting race-related stress in theclassroom. Educational Leadership, 75(4), 51–55.
Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. L. H. (2006). Racial identity
matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning
in African American adolescents. Journal of research on Adolescence, 16(2), 187–
216.
Sisask, M., Värnik, P., Värnik, A., Apter, A., Balazs, J., Balint, M., ... & Wasserman, D.
(2014). Teacher satisfaction with school and psychological well-being affects theirreadiness to help children with mental health problems. Health Education
Journal, 73(4), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896913485742
Sitlhou, M. (2017). India's Universities Are Falling Terribly Short on Addressing Caste
Discrimination. The Wire. Retrieved from https://thewire.in/caste/india-universitiescaste-discrimination. Accessed 21 July 2021.
Slobodin, O., Icekson, T., Herman, L., & Vaknin, O. (2021). Perceived Discrimination andMotivation to Pursue Higher Education in Ethiopian-Origin Students: The ModeratingRole of Ethnic Identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2086.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.647180
Smalls, C., White, R., Chavous, T., & Sellers, R., (2007). Racial ideological beliefs and racial
discrimination experiences as predictors of academic engagement among African
American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33(3), pp.299–330.
Smart Richman, L., & Leary, M. R. (2009). Reactions to discrimination, stigmatization,
ostracism, and other forms of interpersonal rejection: a multimotive
model. Psychological review, 116(2), 365. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015250
Soric, T. M. (2011). The impact of teacher attitudes on academic achievement in
disadvantaged schools (doctoral dissertation). University of Toledo.
Stephan, C. W., & Stephan, W. S. (2013). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In‘‘Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination’’(S. Oskamp, ed.). Psychology Press, New
York, NY, USA, pp. 33–56.
Sun, R. C. F., & Shek, D. T. L. (2012). Student classroom misbehaviour: an exploratory
study based on teachers' perceptions. The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/208907
Tajfel, H. (1999). Turner. JC (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behaviour. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7–24.

48

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 6 – 2021

Utsey, S. O., Giesbrecht, N., Hook, J., & Stanard, P. M. (2008). Cultural, sociofamilial, andpsychological resources that inhibit psychological distress in African Americans
exposed to stressful life events and race-related stress. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 55(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.49
Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J., & Gharaei, N. (2019). Discrimination and academic (dis)engagement of ethnic-racial minority students: A social identity threat
perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 22(2), 267–290.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-09476-0
Wildhagen, T. (2011). Testing the 'acting White' hypothesis: A popular explanation runs outof empirical steam. The Journal of Negro Education, 445–463.
Wu, H. P., Garza, E., & Guzman, N. (2015). International student’s challenge and adjustment
to college. Education Research International, 2015, ID 202753.
Yasui, M., Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E., & Ball, A. (2015). Socialization of culture andcoping with discrimination among American Indian families: Examining cultural
correlates of youth outcomes. Journal of the Society for Social Work andResearch, 6(3), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1086/682575
Corresponding author: Somasundar M
Email: somasundar.researcher@gmail.com

49