Bullying y psicopatologias

8/10/2019 Bullying y psicopatologias

1/14

Articles

Peer Victimization: Cause or Consequence

of School Maladjustment?

Becky J. Kochenderfer and Gary W. Ladd

University ofIllinois atUrbana-Charapaign

KocHENDEftFER, EECKYJ., and LADD. GARY W . Peer Victim,ization: Cause orC onsequenceof

School Maladjustment? CHIL D DETO LO PM ENT, 1996,67,130 5-1317. P ast research has shown tha

peer victimization and school maladjustment are related, but it is unclear whether victimization is

a cause or conseq uenc e of such difficulties. T his study exam ined whe ther (a) peer victimization

ISa precursor of school maiadjus tment, (b) the effects are limited to the period of victimization

and (c) stable peer victimization experiences compo und adjustment difficulties. T oward this en d

daia were collected

on

200 5- and 6-year-old children (105 males, 95 females)

m

the fall an

spring of kindergarten. Findings supported the hypothesis that victimizationis a precursor o

children's loneliness and school avoidance. Whereas children's feelings of loneliness were more

pronounced while victimization was occurring, delayed effects were found for school avoidance

Furthermore, the duration of children's victimization experiences was related to the magnitude

of their school adjustment problems.

C oncern about children who are victim-

ized by their peers has increased as

a

result

of research conducted on childhood aggres-

sion

(see

P atterson, L it tman,

&

Bricker,

1967;

Perrj ' ,

Kusel, &

Perrj-,

1988) and bul-

lying behavior (Boulton & U i d e r w o o d ,

1992.,

O lweus, 1991). How ever, peer victim-

ization has not been as well defined nor as

well investigated relative

to its

counter-

partsaggressive

and

bullying behaviors

(see Perr>'el al., 1988). W hereas somere-

searchers have construed peer victimization

asanoutcom e of bully ing behaviors (i .e .,a

subtype of aggression that is unprovoked,

occurs repeatedly and over time, .and is per-

petrated by a stronger child against a weaker

one; see O lwe us, 1991). others have framed

the concept of victimization more hroadly as

a role or position that children occupy in ag-

gressive en coun ters (i.e. . , the targ et of pe ers '

aggressive behaviors: see Perry elai., 1988).

C onsistent witb P erry, Kusei, and P erry,we

define peer victimization more brcadly, that

is, as aform of pe er abu seinwhichachild

is frequently the target of peer aggression.

Recent investigations have shown that a

substantial number

of

children

are

victira-

ized by their peers at school (Boulton & Un-

onaregular basis. T her e is also eviden ceto

suggest that the prevalence of peer victim

ization

is

greater am ong youn ger

as

com

pared to older school-age po pulation s.Ol

weus (1991) found that

the

proportion

o

students victimized by peers in secon

through sixth grade (11.6%) was twice that o

students in grades 7-9 (5.4%). Kochenderfe

and L add (in press) found eve n high er rate

of victimization among kindergarten chil

dren; 22.6% of their sample of 56-year-oIds

reported moderate to high levels of peer vic

timization.

T h e r eisalso growing evide nce to indi

cate that victimized children are at risk for

a

variety

of

adjustment prob lems. Studie

have shown that victimized childrenare

more anxious and insecure (O lweus, 1993)

hav e lower self-esteem (A lsaker,1993

Bjorkqvist, Ek man , & L agerspetz, 1982; L a

gerspetz, Bjorkqvist, Berts,

&

King, 1982

O lweu s, 1993), and are mo re likely to be de

pressed (Bjorkqvist

et al.,

1982; O l w e us

1992) than non victimized age mates. A ddi

tionally, victimized children appear to have

greater difficulty adjusting

to

school. C om

pared

to

nonv ictimized classmates, victim

ized children arelon elier (Boulton &U n

&

L a dd ,

m


2/14

1306 Child Development

higher levels

of

school av oidan ce (Kochen-

derfer & L add;inpress).

atel}^,

the linkage betw een

peer victimization and children's adjustment

problems

has not

oeen well iisvestigated.

Because most reseajrclieTS have reliedpri-

marili--

on

coacurrent assessments

to

exam-

ine the relation be^tween these constructs,

it

remains uncJesr astowh ether pe er victim-

ization

is a

cause

or a

qonseq-uence

of

cinfi--

dre ii's adjustoieiif: prob.iem.. M oreov er,

m uc h

of

tne data

on

the reJation beti^'ee-n

pe er victimizatioi . and child ren 's adjustoient

has beert gatbered clming tbe middle grade

school )-eai-s when v-ict.imizatiori patterns

have been shown to be pelatively stable (see

Bouitou & IJfiderwood. 1992). By this point

in children's school careers,

ft

raavhedifB-

cult to disentongie tTrie linkage bete'een vic-

timization

and

child ren's adjustment,

as

these relations mav already

be

la-el] estab-

listed..

I D

order to obtain clues about the causa.

priority of these variables, thereis ane e dto

conckicl lon gitud inal stad ias witii sannpies of

relatively unacquainted childrenbefore

aggressor/victim palteras have been estab-

lished. By identifj/ing such samples arid as-

sessing botli victimization and adjustment at

u ltiple poJnts in tim e, it Y /ou)d be possible

or investigators

to

de t e r m i ne w he t he r

it is

in

Kindergarten provides a natural v/indow

as

chil-

are

tjr'pically

in

new peer groups

and

know rela-

few, ifany , of the ir classmates (L add

in

that, upon enterin g grade school,

n ew de m a nds ,

a

ttovei school env iron

a new

peer group,

and

(L add & P rice, 1987).Orone hand,it

may have

Hence, one objective

of

the present

in-

vestigation was to examine rnore closely the

link between children's victimization expe-

riences

and

their school adjustment

in

kin-

dergarten. Specifically, it wasofinterestto

explore

tbe

hyp oth esis "that early pe er vic-

timization

has a

negative impact

OD

chil-

dren's school adjustment and,in particular,

leads to the formation of negative seliool atti-

tudes,

perceptions, and feelings. T oward

tJiis end, vre ideotified a .sampleofkinder-

gajten children and assessed botii peer vie-

tin-iization and school adjustm ent tv/ice dur-

ing file school year (i.e.. fall, spring). Several

school adjustment indices (see L add, 1980;

L add i& P rice, 1987} we re assessedat each

dine

rjf

measavement, including

(a)

s c t ool

attitudes {i.e., how rnnch children like

school),

(it)

school affect (i.e., lonelin ess

in

school),

(c)

school invo lvem ent (i.e .,

ex-

pressed desire to avoid school), and (d) aca-

de m i c a c M e ve m e nt D a t a pr oduc ed

by

this

iongitudiiiai design vrere analysed to deter-

mine vA ether early victimizaiion experi-

ences predtcfced changes in children's school

aclju.sfcme.ri(- or whether early adjusfcrnent dii~

ficiJiaes forecasted cbanges

in

children's

victimiz ation status. C onsi.stent with

our

bypotheses, it wasanticipated that the re-

suits oftiiese analyses would support the

in-

terpretation tliat peer victimization isapre-

cuj-sior of children 's school adjustraent

prohlems.

Fnrthermore, the timing and duration of

peer victimization iri.ay play

a

crucial role

in

the wil-astment outcomes experienced by

young ' I 'ictimized children . A lthough there

is evidence to sugge st that pee r victimiza-

tion is a relatively stable phen om eno nas

early as secortd g rade (b)' S or 9 years of

age;

B'O uiton S: U nde r w ood, 1992; O l w eu s ,

1902), little

IS

known about

the

onset

and

stability

of

pieer victimiz.ation

at

younger

grade levels.Jt is conceivable that, young

children's exposure

to

pe er victimization

may be eidier an acute or chronic ex perience

and may emerge

at

different tim es d urin g

the .school year.Forinstance, P eTiy, P err;/,

an d B oldizar (1990) liave argued that, as chil-


3/14


4/14

130 8 C hild Development

compound children's schooi adjiistment dil^

ficulties. It was anticipated that children

who continued to hs victimized over the

school year (i.e. . Stable V ictims) v/ouJd sho w

significant increases in school makdjust-

ment from fall to spring of kindergarten.

M e t h o d

Subjects

T he sam ple consisted of 200 kindergar-

ten ch ildr en -vidio w ere r ec rui ted from th re e

schooi_ systems in the mid we stem Un ited

States. ' T here w ere 105 males and 95 fe-

males whose mean age was 5.50 at the be-

ginning of the school year. All subjects were

participants in a larger 5-year longitudinal

project, and informed parental consent \as

obtained for all children as they enrered kin-

dergai-ten. O nly classroom s for wh ich p er-

mission rates exceeded 80% were included

in the project {n = 16). Paiideipants came

from di'verse socioeconomie backgrourtds:

36.3% were lo/er- to lovk'er-iniddle income

(less tiian 820,000); 30.5% were middle in-

come (821,000-340,000;: and the remainder

were upper-middle to high-income families

(above S41,000;. T he e thnic com position of

tlie sampie was representative of that found

in the participating schooJ systems.- 20,0%

Miicaik A m e ri ca n, 2 .0% L a t ino; 73 . 5% C a u-

casian; and 4.5% mixed race and other.

Measures

Self-reports of peer vict-imization.

T he P erceptions of P eer Support Scale

( P P S S ; see L add, Kochenderfer, & C oleman,

1998; was administered to children during

indi's'idual interviews to obtain information

about children's perceptions of classroom

peers. r''oiir of the items on this scale al-

lowed children to self-report the extent to

which "they had experienced peer aggres-

sion. T hese i tems loaded

C Q

a factor that was

separate from the remaining items cii the

scale find produced a relatively consistent

attern of responses from children (alpha of

our-item subscale = .74). Du ring m ter-

iei'i/s, the items ivere presented to children

as follows: Does anyone in your class

e-*'er;

(1) pick on you at school? (2) hit ycraaE

interviewers trained children to use a 'three-

point response format (scale): no (1), some-

times (2}, a lot (3). VictimizatioK scores were

calculated by averaging the four items

(scores ranged from 1.00 to 3.00).

In order to identify a group of children

who had experienboed^ .high levels of peer ag-

gression, children were cla.ssified as victims

if; across the four items, they received scores

tiat an/eraged above thie scale's midpoint of

"soT O etirfies" (i.e., 2.25 on tlie thr ee-p oin t

scale).

T his criterion is consisten t with the

conceptualization of peer victimization as a

form of abuse in vt^hich a child is frequently

ta.rgeted for peer aggression. For instance,

O lweus (1991) consid ered children to be

victims if diey repo^rted being tscrgeted for

aggressi've be hav iors rep ea ted )' aDid over

time. Tbu.s., our cut-off is an attempt to dis-

tiiigutsh betvi/een those kiridergarmers who

are occasionally tbe recipieots of peers' ag-

gressive O 'i'ertures and tbo se child ren w ho

ar epe rsistently tEtrgeted for agg ression . Fu r-

tb^jToore, this cut-off criterion was chosen

to be compar,able to the "now and tlien, or

moie often" sel^report ciiterloQ utilized by

O 'lweus to idendfi,' 'i ' ictimized child ren.

M oreov er, the propori:ion of childre n ide nti-

fied using tbis criterion ('20.5%) app.rosi-

mates A at found itt other samples of Idnder-

garteiL chi ldre n (18%; Kodbenderfer, 1995)

and O 'lweus's y oung est sample of children

(17%; second d

T he validity of

t be

self-report m easu re

ot peer victimization 'if s examined with a

separate sample of kindergarten cbildren

(see Koefeenderfer & L add,

1996}.

Based on

observational data, tliese investigEitors con-

cluded that tbe self-report measure pro-

duced sufficiently reliable and valid data for

identiiyiiig young victims. T bat is . children

virbo were identifieda>svictims based onself-

reports were aiso rated by observers as expe-

riencing significantly higher ievels of peer

aggnessiori in their classrooms compared to

children who were classified as nonvictims.

A i^diL tiooai )', evi de nc e of conc iirienf valid-

ity foi bo'lii: self-re po rts arid obseT ver ratin gs

of i,':ictimization i^Tis oblained. SpeciBcall)',


5/14

Kochenderfer and L add 1309

with pee r acceptance (see A lsaker, 1993;

Boulton & Un derw ood , 1992; P erry, Kusel,

& P erry, 1988).

O ver 75% of kindergarten ch ildren re-

ported experiencing some level of peer ag-

gression at each assessment period (i.e., re-

ceived an a^'erase score that was greater

than 1.0.3: Fa ll: M = 1.66, SD = .57; Spring:

M = 1.61, SD = .56). How ever, as men -

tioned above, in order to be classified as a

"victim" a child had to receive a victimisa-

tion score which indicated that she or he w as

frequently targeted for pe er aggression.

Based on this criterion, victimization groups

were created hy identifying children who

had scores abo'^'e 2.25 only in the fall (Fall

O nly Victim) and only in the spring (Spring

O nly Victim). C hildren who reported this

relatively high level of victimization in both

fall and spring were assigned to a Stable Vic-

tim group, and children whose victimization

scores fell below the cut-off criterion at both

points in time were assigned to the Konvic-

tim group.^

School liking and avoidance. A r e -

vised version of the School L iking and

A voidance Questionnaire (L add & P rice,

19S7) was also administered to children dur-

ing individual interviews to tap differences

in their school attitudes (e.g., how much

they like school) and involvement (i.e., ex-

pressed desire to avoid school). T his 14-item

scale factored into a nine-item school liking

subscale (e.g., "Do you like being in

school?" alpha = .91) and a five-it'm school

avoidance .subscale (e.g., '"Do you wish you

didn't have to come to school?" alpha = .81)

C hildren w ere trained to respond to a three-

point respotise format (scale): yes (3), some-

times (2), or no (1). Scores were obtained for

each Eubscale by averaging childreti's scores

across items.

Loneliness. T he C a ss idy a nd A s her

(1992) L on eline ss and So cial Dissatisfaction

Questionnaire (LSDQ) was also individually

administered to children. To obtain a mea-

sure of loneliness that was distinct from so-

cial dissatisfaction, a subscaJe was created

that included th ree L SD Q items ( those that

refer directly to loneliness) and Uvo addi-

you sad and alone at school?"). Scores were

created by averaging children's yes (3)

sometimes (2), or no (1) responses over these

five items (alpha = .78).

Academic achievement. T h e M e tr o

politan Readiness T est (M RT ; Nurss &

M cG auvran, 1986) was used to assess chil

dren's academic progress at two points in

time.

For the fall assessmen t. L evel 1 wa

administered during individual intervievvs

A fall ach ievem ent score was calculated by

averaging the verbal and language stanine

scores . During the spring semester . L evel 2

of the M RT was administered in groups o

about 15 children. Spring achievemen

scores were computed by averaging the stan

ine scores for the verbal, language, and

quantitative subtests.

Procedure

As part of the larger longitudinal study

children were individually interviewed dur

ing two 40-min sessions during both the fal

and sp ring of the kinderg arten year. With the

exception of the M RT , which was group

administered m the spring, the same mea

sures were given in both semesters and v/er

administered in a counterbalanced orde

across sessions. Before each interview, chil

dren were told that their participation wa

voluntary and that their responses were con

fidential. A fter each session, child ren re

ceived colorful stickers and pencils for thei

participation.

Results

Relations among School

Adjustment Measures

C orrelations am ong the fall and sp rin

scbool adjustment indices were low to mod

erate in magnitude (see T able 1). T he mag

nitude of these correlations suggests that th

subscales tap different aspects of school ad

justment and, consequently, all subscale

were retained for the following analyses.

Prevalence and Stability

of Peer Victimization

In the fall, 20.5% of the kindergartner

reported being victimized, on the average

more than "sometimes" (i .e ., scores abov


6/14

131 0 C hild Development

T A B L E

1

COEHELATIONS AMONG

F A L L AXD S P H I N G S C H O C L - V D J US T M E N T

INDICES

L o n e l in e ss ...

School liking .. ....

School avoidance ....... ..

L o n e li n e ss

School likmg

School avoidance

' p 4.75, p


9/14

Kochenderfer and L add 13 13

TA B LE 4

MEAN SCOBES(Standard Deviations in Parentheses) FO H SCHOO L ADJUSTM ENT

M EA SUBES FOH EAC H VICT IM IZA TIO N G HOUP A CROSS ASSESSM ENT PERIO DS

Fall Spring C hange from

A ssessment A ssessment Fall to Spring

L oneliness:

Nonvictims 1.37 (.48)" 1.41 (.48)" N. T .

Fall only victims 1.81 (.66)*' 1.64 (.60) N. S.

Spring onlv victims 1.54 (.54) 1.70 (.68) p < .001

Stable victims 1.68 (.61)'' 1.98 (.66)'' p


10/14

3 4 Child Development

school less

(t=

2.64,

p ', L . G . (1988)

Victims of peer aggression.

Developmenta

Psychology, 2 4 , 8 0 7 - 8 1 4 .

P erry, D. G . , P erry, L . G . , & Boldizar, J . P . (1990)

L earning of aggression. I n M . L ewis & S

M iller (Eds.) , Handb ook of developmenta

psychopathology (pp. 135-146). New York

P l e n u m .

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L . (1988). Contra

analysis. Focused comparisons in the analy

sis of variance.

New Y ork: G ambridge Uni

versity' P ress.


14/14

Bullying y psicopatologias

Documents

Transcript of Bullying y psicopatologias