The development of a Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy Scale for Adolescents

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

The development of a Peer Aggression CopingSelf-Efficacy Scale for Adolescents

Puneet Singh* and Kay BusseyMacquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

This study presents findings regarding the reliability and validity of a newly developedmeasure designed to assess children’s self-efficacy for coping with peer aggression.The sample consisted of 2,161 participants (1,071 females and 1,090 males, who rangedin age from 10 to 15 years; 63% White, 17% Middle-Eastern, 10% Asian, and 10% fromother ethnic groups). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the fourconceptualized coping self-efficacy domains: self-efficacy for proactive behaviour,self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour, self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame, andself-efficacy for victim-role disengagement. Internal consistencies for the copingdomains were between .87 and .90. Validity was examined by correlations between thecoping self-efficacy domains and psychological adjustment variables. Greater copingself-efficacy was associated with less social anxiety, cognitive depression, andexternalizing symptoms. The Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy Scale provides auseful measure for examining children’s self-efficacy for using a range of strategies todeal with peer aggression.

The development of a Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy ScalePeer aggression including verbal insults, physical harassment, and social aggression has

been recognized as a significant problem in schools worldwide (Bentley & Li, 1995;

Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000; Rigby, 1996; Whitney

& Smith, 1993). Children who are victimized by peers often suffer from increased levels

of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation (Crick, 1996; Hawker &Boulton, 2000; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Rigby, 2003; Slee, 1994). Not all

victims suffer adverse consequences (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992; Kochenderfer-

Ladd & Ladd, 2001). If they do, they do not all suffer the same adverse consequences.

Some victims recover better than others. These variable outcomes indicate that peer

aggression alone cannot account for enduring negative psychological outcomes.

A variety of factors contribute to the differential impact of aggression on victims.

These include situational factors specific to the nature of the event (e.g. frequency,

* Correspondence should be addressed to Puneet Singh, Psychology Department, Macquarie University, Sydney,New South Wales 2109, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]) or Kay Bussey (e-mail: [email protected]).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

971

British Journal of Developmental Psychology (2009), 27, 971–992

q 2009 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/026151008X398980


duration) which reciprocally interact with various internal personal (e.g. cognitive,

affective responses) and behavioural (e.g. behavioural reactions) factors (Bandura, 1997;

Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd, 2001).

One factor that contributes to variations in response to negative events such as peer

aggression is coping self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004). Coping

self-efficacy refers to one’s perceived capability to manage personal functioning and tomobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise

control over negative events (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Ozer & Bandura, 1990).

Coping self-efficacy beliefs enable enactment of successful coping responses, resulting

in less distress. The benefits of self-efficacy beliefs are not, however, limited to coping

deployment. Self-efficacy beliefs empower individuals by fostering a sense of control

and belief that they are proactive agents who can shape their life circumstances.

These empowering beliefs result in less distress (Bandura, 1997). Indeed, individuals

who believed themselves to be efficacious in confronting particular threateningsituations had reduced autonomic arousal and stress reactions in those circumstances,

however, in situations where they evidenced low self-efficacy beliefs, their distress

increased (Bandura, Blanchard, & Ritter, 1969; Bandura, Taylor, Williams, Mefford, &

Barchas, 1985; Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982).

A considerable amount of research has confirmed the central role of coping self-

efficacy in helping individuals recover from traumatic, stressful, and threatening events

(for example, phobias, natural disasters, military combat, criminal and sexual assault.

Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004). Coping self-efficacy has mostly beeninvestigated in adult populations. There is, however, a limited amount of research that

has demonstrated the beneficial role of coping self-efficacy in children and adolescents

recovery from negative events (Cheever & Hardin, 1999; Saigh, Mroueh, Zimmerman, &

Fairbank, 1995). In these studies, greater self-efficacy has served a protective function

for children who have experienced distressing events. Saigh et al. (1995), for example,

showed that adolescents with greater self-efficacy reported less traumatic symptoms.

Peer harassment has much in commonwith threatening events (e.g. trauma, phobias)

that have been amenable to investigation within the conceptual framework provided bycoping self-efficacy (Benight & Bandura, 2004). For most children, peer harassment is a

stressful event that involves feelings of disempowerment and vulnerability, associated

negative cognitions, and anxiety arousal (Hunter & Boyle, 2004; Spirito, Stark, Grace, &

Stamoulis, 1991). Most children witness, engage in, or are the victims of peer aggression

during their schooling experience. Indeed, 77% of secondary students report being

victimized at some time during their school years (Hoover et al., 1992). How students

cope with peer aggression not only places them at risk for subsequent and chronic

victimization, but also places them at risk for psychologicalmaladjustment (seeHawker&Boulton, 2000). It is expected, however, that children with high coping self-efficacy

would be less vulnerable to psychological maladjustment as self-efficacy beliefs attenuate

negative outcomes. Coping self-efficacy beliefs determine whether coping behaviours

will be enacted, the effort expended, and persistence in the face of obstacles (Bandura,

1997). It is important to note the reciprocal relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and

behaviour. Greater belief in one’s ability (coping self-efficacy) results in more confident

enactment of coping responses (coping behaviour). In turn, coping self-efficacy beliefs

are partly influenced by performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1997). Therefore, itwould be expected that the greater children’s self-efficacy for coping with peer

aggression, the better able they are to handle victimization, and the less likely they are to

be repeatedly victimized and suffer from chronic maladjustment problems.

972 Puneet Singh and Kay Bussey


Coping self-efficacy has been used to explain individuals’ variable adjustment

responses to incidents such as natural disasters (e.g. Hurricane Opal, Hurricane

Katrina), the Oklahoma City bombing, and motor vehicle accidents (Benight, Cieslak,

Molton, & Johnson, 2008; Benight, Ironson, & Durham, 1999; Benight, Ironson, Klebe

et al., 1999; Benight, Swift, Sanger, Smith, & Zeppelin, 1999; Benight et al., 1997;

Benight et al., 2000; Hyre et al., 2008). Importantly, some individuals may have a limitedexperience of adversity whereas others have a history of numerous negative events.

From the socio-cognitive framework, rather than examining generalized perceptions of

responding to past events, an individual’s ability to cope with a specific event is

investigated. Consistent with this view, in the domestic violence context, an individual’s

coping self-efficacy for ‘the most recent assault’ rather than the general pattern of abuse

was assessed. Greater efficacy was associated with less maladjustment (Benight,

Harding-Taylor, Midboe, & Durham, 2004). Children’s experiences of aggression may

also range from limited experiences of victimization to more chronic victimization.Hunter, Boyle, and Warden (2007) distinguish between peer aggression and peer

victimization. Peer aggression is conceptualized as a non-recurring event, whereas peer

victimization is defined as experiencing repeated acts of aggression. In line with the

domestic violence research, rather than examining children’s self-efficacy for coping

with a generalized pattern of ongoing aggression in the past (i.e. peer victimization),

in this study, children’s capacity to cope with peer aggression was examined.

As coping self-efficacy is important in explaining adjustment outcomes for specific

negative incidents, it was expected that greater coping self-efficacy for peer aggressionwould be associated with less psychological maladjustment. Children’s coping self-

efficacy may also reduce psychological maladjustment by reducing repeated

victimization. Children with high coping self-efficacy for dealing with an aggressive

incident would be expected to ward off repeated victimization by using constructive

coping strategies such as assertiveness. If a child has low coping self-efficacy for

assertiveness, he or she will be unlikely to behave in an assertive manner effectively, if at

all. Children’s coping self-efficacy is also likely to be affected by the chronicity of their

victimization experience, which in turn would be expected to impact their adjustment.Before these and related hypotheses can be tested, the first challenge was to develop a

measure of children’s self-efficacy for coping with peer aggression. This was the aim of

the present study.

Negative peer interactions may range from infrequent teasing to repeated

victimization. Effective ways of coping with peer aggression and peer victimization

informed the development of the peer aggression coping self-efficacy measure (Crick &

Dodge, 1994; Feldman & Dodge, 1987; Field, 1999; Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Hall,

2006; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Kochenderfer-Ladd &Skinner, 2002; Mahady Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 2000; Morrison, 2003; Salmivalli,

Karhunen, & Lagerspetz, 1996; Sandstrom, 2004). Coping strategies were selected on

the basis that they were associated with less negative psychological outcomes for

victimized children or that they were deemed to curtail repeated victimization, thereby

reducing the risk of psychological maladjustment.

Six domains most relevant to the peer aggression and peer victimization context

were selected for inclusion in the coping self-efficacy measure. Two domains focused on

behaviour. The first examined children’s capacity to enact behaviours deemed to beeffective in managing negative peer interactions (self-efficacy for proactive behaviour),

and the second assessed children’s perceived ability to avoid engaging in

behaviours linked to detrimental outcomes (self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive

Peer Aggression Coping Self-efficacy Scale 973


behaviour). The third domain focused on children’s ability to avoid internalizing

responses (self-efficacy for avoiding internalizing). Self-efficacy for handling aversive

situations includes not only enacting and inhibiting behavioural responses but also ways

of thinking about the experience. Thus, the fourth domain focused on children’s ability

to avoid debilitating thoughts (self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame) and the fifth

explored their ability for self-enhancing thoughts (self-efficacy for victim-roledisengagement). The final domain assessed children’s capacity for forgivingness (self-

efficacy for forgivingness). These six domains of coping self-efficacy are detailed in the

following paragraphs.

The first domain, proactive behaviour self-efficacy, focused on children’s self-efficacy

for actions deemed important in managing negative peer interactions. Taking action to

reduce the likelihood of aversive outcomes is an essential aspect of coping self-efficacy

(Benight & Bandura, 2004). In the context of peer harassment, this is akin to reducing

the likelihood of repeated victimization and the risk of psychological maladjustment.Thus, support seeking, problem-solving, assertiveness, and conflict resolution were

included. Support seeking has been shown as effective in managing negative peer

interactions (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002).

Although the impact of using support seeking may differ depending on the sex and age

of the child, as well as level of victimization experienced, it was included as its efficacy

in managing peer harassment has been shown (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997;

Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002). When seeking support different confidants are

often identified (Glover, Gough, Johnson, & Cartwright, 2000). Further, support seekingcan be utilized for obtaining help, seeking advice, and emotional support (Hunter,

Boyle, &Warden, 2004). Therefore, self-efficacy to obtain help and advice from different

sources and to seek emotional support was investigated.

Problem solvingwas also included in the self-efficacy for proactive behaviour domain.

Children’s capacity to utilize problem-solving strategies affects how they handle peer

relationships (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Feldman & Dodge, 1987). Problem solving involves

children independently choosing a method for reducing their own distress. In an

observational study, instrumental coping (constructive action, problem solving) wasassociated with the de-escalation of victimization (Mahady Wilton et al., 2000).

Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002) found that problem solving was associated with

positive outcomes for children who experienced low levels of victimization.

Assertiveness is a type of problem-solving behaviour in which an individual stands up

for himself or herself. Thus this behaviour was also investigated as part of the self-efficacy

for proactive behaviour domain. Several interventions have included assertiveness

training in their programs as it is posited that victims of bullying lack skills in standing up

for themselves (Field, 1999; Hall, 2006). By responding in an assertivemanner it is arguedthat children ward off further aggression and thus they are less likely to be repeatedly

victimized. Lastly, conflict resolution was measured as it is usually incorporated into

intervention programs such as restorative justice (Morrison, 2003). These strategies

enable children to handle conflictual interactions in a cooperative peaceful manner.

Indeed, conflict resolution has been shown to reduce victimization over the school year

(Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004). It was expected that children with greater self-efficacy for

utilizing proactive behaviour would suffer less psychological maladjustment than those

who have low self-efficacy for proactive behaviour.In addition to utilizing proactive behaviour, children need to avoid strategies

associated with increased victimization and psychological maladjustment. Thus, the

second domain, self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour, included items assessing



children’s self-efficacy for avoiding externalizing and revenge seeking. Students

involved in negative peer interactions may employ aggressive strategies in retaliation to

the victimization they experience. They may throw things, be physically aggressive

towards others (i.e. use externalizing coping strategies) and seek revenge from

perpetrators of aggression. Indeed, an observational study indicated that physical and

verbal aggression coping styles were utilized by approximately 42% of students inresponse to being bullied (Mahady Wilton et al., 2000). These strategies were associated

with negative outcomes including adjustment difficulties and the perpetuation of

victimization (Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Kochenderfer-

Ladd & Skinner, 2002; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000; Sandstrom, 2004). Students who

coped by externalizing or seeking revenge in response to being bullied were likely to

perpetuate the cycle of aggression. Thus, it was important to include children’s self-

efficacy for avoiding such aggressive strategies in this scale. Greater efficacy for avoiding

aggressive behaviour was hypothesized to be associated with less negativepsychological consequences.

Not only have aggressive coping strategies been associated with negative outcomes,

but passive strategies have also been linked with repeated victimization and negative

psychological consequences. These latter strategies were the focus of the third domain.

Internalizing strategies are those which involve behaviours such as crying and

withdrawing from others as well as worrying about the stressor. The use of these

strategies has been associated with anxiety (Causey & Dubow, 1992). It is important to

examine internalizing coping strategies within bullying and aggression contexts asresearch has shown that internalizing behaviours such as withdrawing and crying are

more prominent in children who are victimized in comparison with those who are not

victimized (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Olweus, 1993; Perry, Williard, &

Perry, 1990; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993). Kochenderfer-Ladd and Skinner (2002)

found that internalizing strategies were positively correlated with peer victimization. It

is important to note that these behaviours are often antecedents as well as the

consequences of victimization and thus children become involved in a vicious cycle of

repeated victimization. It is possible that if students avoid internalizing coping theywould not continue to be victimized, consequently, examining their ability to avoid

internalizing was essential. It was hypothesized that greater self-efficacy for avoiding

internalizing coping would be associated with less psychological maladjustment.

In addition to examining children’s actions in response to peer aggression, it was also

important to consider the manner in which children think about their experience. Peer

victimization has been associated with negative self-perceptions, such as self-blame,

which results in psychological maladjustment (Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Lunde, Frisen,

& Hwang, 2006). Controlling distressing thoughts is an important component of thecoping self-efficacy framework. Distress is likely to be created and exacerbated by an

individual’s lack of ability to regulate their thoughts (Benight & Bandura, 2004). Indeed,

it is not the frequency of negative cognitions that result in anxiety, but the individual’s

belief in their ability to control the thoughts (Churchill & McMurray, 1989; Kent, 1987;

Kent & Gibbons, 1987; Salkovskis & Harrison, 1984). High cognitive control self-efficacy

has been shown to be associated with less preoccupation with negative thoughts and in

turn with a reduction in anxiety (Ozer & Bandura, 1990). Examining self-efficacy for

thought regulation is particularly relevant as one of the important components forhealth behaviour change is controlling distressing thoughts (Steffen, McKibbin, Zeiss,

Gallagher-Thompson, & Bandura, 2002). Thus, the fourth domain was concerned with

children’s capacity to avoid perturbing thoughts, specifically their belief in their ability



to avoid self-blame. Students make different attributions about the reasons they are

victimized and this has been linked with variations in psychological outcomes (Graham

& Juvonen, 1998). Children who construe the victimization as a personal attack and

blame themselves are more likely to suffer from psychological disturbances (Graham &

Juvonen, 2001). It was hypothesized that students with greater self-efficacy for avoiding

self-blame would be less likely to suffer psychological maladjustment than those whoseself-efficacy beliefs were lower.

The capacity to form self-enhancing thoughts is an additional practice that can

attenuate psychological disturbance (Bandura, 1997). Thus, the fifth domain examined

children’s self-efficacy for disengaging from the victim role. In peer victimization

research, low self-regard is related over time to victimization, thus a focus on poor self-

concept ‘invites’ repeated victimization (Egan & Perry, 1998). Others also argue that a

victim mindset can be debilitating and hinder recovery from stressful events (Karp,

Butler, & Bergstrom, 1998; Ochberg, 1988). A measure of self-efficacy for victim-role

disengagementwas developed for this study. Self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement

was conceptualized as an individual’s ability to overcome the victimization mindset by

focusing on positive attributes and not allowing the victimization to become a defining

characteristic of one’s sense of self. It was expected that greater self-efficacy to think in

self-enhancing ways through victim-role disengagement would be associated with less

psychological maladjustment.

The sixth domain was concerned with self-efficacy for forgivingness. Forgiveness is a

process by which the victim ceases to feel resentment towards the individual who hascaused them harm (McCullough, Pargament, & Thoreson, 2000). Rather than housing

feelings of anger and revenge, forgivingness is associated with positive compassionate

feelings (Berry & Worthington, 2001). Forgivingness is related to psychological well-

being and favourable health outcomes (Berry & Worthington, 2001; Todd, 1985;

Ysseldyk, Matheson, & Anisman, 2007). It is argued to play a healing role in conflictual

relationships and facilitates reconciliation (Berry & Worthington, 2001). For students

who bully, perceived parental forgivingness has been associated with a decrease in

bullying behaviour (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2006). This highlights the importance offorgivingness in deterring negative peer interactions. There has been little research,

however, addressing the contribution of forgivingness to student’s recovery from

victimization. It was hypothesized that greater self-efficacy for forgivingness would be

associated with less psychological maladjustment.

Finally, the contribution of gender and age to coping self-efficacy were considered.

Coping is particularly difficult in the transition period to adolescence, hence it is

important to examine coping self-efficacy in this age group (Caprara, Regali, & Bandura,

2002). Gender differences in coping self-efficacy were expected. Specifically, it washypothesized that girls’ self-efficacy beliefs for instigating proactive behaviour strategies

would be stronger than those of boys. Adolescent girls are more likely than adolescent

boys to seek social support and problem solve (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Griffith,

Dubow, & Ippolito, 2000). These gender differences may reflect traditional gender

stereotypes. Girls are socialized to seek out others, to ask for help, whereas boys are

socialized to be independent (Bierhoff, 2002). The use of proactive behaviour such as

support seeking also decreases with age as students may feel less comfortable

approaching others for help and may prefer to sort out their own difficulties (Hunteret al., 2004; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004). In subscales that assess children’s use of both

support seeking and problem solving, much like the proactive behaviour domain, age-

related decreases are evident (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Thus, it was



expected that with increasing age, children’s efficacy for engaging in proactive

behaviour would decrease. It was further expected that boys self-efficacy for avoiding

aggressive coping strategies would be weaker than it was for girls. This is in line with

previous research indicating externalizing and revenge seeking strategies are more likely

to be used by males than females (Causey & Dubow, 1992). There are a number of

reasons to explain this difference including the assertion that boys are stronger thangirls and so are more able to use externalizing behaviours such as physical aggression

(Rivers & Smith, 1994). It also has been argued that boys use more aggressive strategies

because the display of aggression conforms to gender stereotypes and aggression is

considered more normative among boys (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992).

As children age, they acquire greater language and cognitive skills and so become

more able to use cognitive coping strategies. By adolescence they develop the capacity

to utilize these strategies (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth,

2001; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). During adolescence, there is an increaseduse of cognitive strategies such as cognitive restructuring and positive self-talk,

however, there is also increased self-criticism and other cognitive strategies such as

reflection are not fully acquired until late adolescence (Donaldson, Prinstein, Danovsky,

& Spirito, 2000; Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). In line with these mixed results

regarding cognitive strategies, no specific hypotheses were predicted for age-related

differences for the cognitive domains (self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame, self-efficacy

for victim-role disengagement). In regard to gender differences in cognitive strategies,

girls are more likely to self-blame than boys, however this result is more evident in lateadolescence, aged sixteen or greater (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999). Since the sample in

this study was not targeting this age group, no specific gender differences were

predicted.

Victimized children may experience a range of psychological problems (Hanish &

Guerra, 2002). Many adjustment problems can be categorized as internalizing (e.g.

social anxiety, depression) or externalizing (e.g. aggression, defiance). To account for

children’s variability in responses, internalizing as well as externalizing symptoms were

measured in this study. The coping self-efficacy scale was validated against thesedifferent psychological outcomes. As already indicated it was predicted that there would

be negative relationships between each of the coping self-efficacy domains and social

anxiety, depression, and externalizing symptoms.

Method

ParticipantsTwo thousand one hundred and sixty-one Australian students in grades 6–9

(1,071 females, 1,090 males, overall mean age ¼ 12:74 years, age range ¼ 10–15

years) from 18 non-government schools participated in this study. In grade 6 there were,

N ¼ 195 females, N ¼ 170 males (mean age ¼ 11:11 years); grade 7, N ¼ 274 females,

N ¼ 311 males (mean age ¼ 12:08 years); grade 8, N ¼ 302 females, N ¼ 307

males (mean age ¼ 13:05 years); and grade 9, N ¼ 300 females, N ¼ 302 males (mean

age ¼ 14:05 years). The sample was approximately 63% White, 17% Middle-Eastern,10% Asian, and 10% from other ethnic groups. Participants were primarily from middle-

class backgrounds. Parental consent to participate in the study was obtained via active

and passive consent depending on the school policy. Verbal assent was obtained for

each child participant.



MeasuresHypothetical peer aggression vignette. Participants were presented with a written

vignette modelled after those used in previous research (Boldizar, Perry, & Perry, 1989;

Eisenberg-Berg &Hand, 1979; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Sandstrom, 2004). The vignette

included examples of physical, verbal and relational aggression. The male version of the

vignette is provided below. Participants were asked to think about experiencing theaggressive incidents described in the vignette andwere asked to rate howwell they could

use the strategies, explicated in the next section, to cope with the victimization.

Occasionally kids get picked on when they’re in school. Once there was a kid just standing in acanteen line and the kid behind him started calling him names. Another time, there was a kidplaying alone outside and another kid went over to him and pushed him down and started kickinghim. Another time there was a boy who walked over to his usual group of friends and they allignored him, later on he found out that the boys had been talking about him behind his back andspreading rumours about him. We would like to know how well you can do the different thingslisted below if you were picked on today. To answer the questions please use the scale describedbelow. When answering the following questions think about some of the things in the storyhappening to you. Think about how well you can do these different things if you were beingpicked on.

Peer aggression coping self-efficacy scale (PA-CSES). The scale initially comprised

46 items developed to measure the six domains. Many of the items were drawn from

published studies and re-worded as self-efficacy measures, while others were specificallydeveloped for this study. Participants rated their self-efficacy for each item on a

seven-point scale (1 ¼ not well at all, 3 ¼ not too well, 5 ¼ pretty well, 7 ¼ very well ).

Each of the scales is discussed below.

Self-efficacy for proactive behaviour. Six support seeking items were adapted from

the Causey and Dubow (1992) self-report coping measure. Three problem-solving items

most relevant to the peer aggression and peer victimization context were chosen for

inclusion in this scale. These were adapted from several different scales (Causey &

Dubow, 1992; Hunter & Boyle, 2004; Sandstrom, 2004). Three assertiveness items wereconstructed on the basis of descriptions of assertive behaviour in intervention programs

for victimized children (Field, 1999; Hall, 2006). The three highest loading conflict

resolution items from the coping scale used by Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004) were selected.

Self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour. Four externalizing items were

adapted from Causey and Dubow’s (1992) self-report coping measure and slightly

modified to make the wording more appropriate for Australian participants. The four

revenge seeking items were slightly modified from the Kochenderfer-Ladd (2004)

coping scale.Self-efficacy for avoiding internalizing. The internalizing items were adapted from

the Causey and Dubow (1992) self-report coping measure. Four of the highest loading

items were chosen for inclusion in the scale.

Self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame. Four of the highest loading items from Graham

and Juvonen’s (1998) characterological self-blame scale were adapted to produce a self-

efficacy for avoiding self-blame scale. The Graham and Juvonen (1998) scale was also

used to guide the development of six additional items.

Self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement. The six items on this scale wereconstructed to measure children’s self-efficacy for focusing on positive attributes and

avoiding taking victimization personally. Items also addressed children’s capacity to

think of alternative reasons for victimization rather than blaming themselves.



Self-efficacy for forgivingness. The forgivingness items were adapted from the Trait

Unforgivingness Scale for adults (Berry, Worthington, O’Connor, Parrot, & Wade, 2005).

Three items that were deemed most relevant to the peer aggression and peer

victimization context were chosen. These items were slightly modified to make them

age appropriate.

Cognitive depression. Due to time restrictions imposed by schools the entiredepression scale could not be utilized. Five of the highest loading items on the cognitive

component of the Center for Epidemiological Studies for Depression Scale for Children

were used to measure children’s depressive mood (Faulstich et al., 1986). The original

Cronbach alpha for the scale was .77 for children and .86 for adolescents. For this study,

it was .82.

Social anxiety. The Generalized Social Anxiety subscale and Fear of Negative

Evaluation subscale of the Social Anxiety Scale for Children – Revised were utilized in

this study (La Greca & Stone, 1993). There was a total of eight items. The Cronbachalpha for this study was .87.

Externalizing. Eight items were adapted from the aggressive behaviour subscale of

the externalizing scale from Achenbach’s (1991) youth self-report. The Cronbach alpha

for this study was .75.

Missing dataSmall amounts of data were missing at the item level (range 0.3–4.9%). Multipleimputation using the expectation-maximization procedure in SPSS was used to handle

missing data. Missing data were imputed using individual items as predictors. This

procedure has been demonstrated as being superior to other common methods of data

imputation including list-wise deletion, pairwise deletion or means substitution (Allison,

2002; Enders, 2001; Schafer & Graham, 2002).

ProcedureIn a group session, consisting of approximately 20 students, participants were askedto complete the questionnaire which included the measures described above. Testing

was conducted under the supervision of research assistants and school teachers. All

testing was conducted on school premises in a 40–50min session. To ensure

confidentiality, children were seated at a distance from each other and asked not to talk

during the session. Participants were assured their individual responses were

confidential and would not be seen by their parents, peers or teachers. All children

were informed that there were no right or wrong answers and it was their opinion that

was of interest to the interviewer. At the end of the session children were thanked fortheir participation and returned to class.

Results

Results are presented in three sections. First, the results from the factor analyses are

presented. Second, gender and age effects for the coping self-efficacy domains are

reported. Finally, correlational analyses between the coping self-efficacy domains and

psychological maladjustment variables are presented.

Structure of the PA-CSESExploratory factor analyses. To examine the factor structure of the PA-CSES, three sets

of factor analyses were performed. Firstly, the 46 items were subjected to an exploratory



factor analysis with principal axis extraction and Oblimin rotation. The Oblimin rotation

method was used as the coping factors were expected to be correlated. Indeed, the final

factor correlation matrix revealed correlations ranging from .26 to .57. Examination of

the resulting scree plot from the exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor

solution. The 46 items were reentered for a second factor analysis and a four factor

solution was specified. Items that failed to load .30 or higher were eliminated. Thisresulted in discarding one internalizing item. The remaining items were subjected to a

final factor analysis with four factors specified once again. Items that loaded on more

than one factor were retained on the factor that was conceptually meaningful. Two

items from the self-efficacy for internalizing scale loaded on the self-efficacy for victim-

role disengagement scale. These items were retained on this factor as they were deemed

to be conceptually similar to the self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement items; they

were concerned with avoiding worrying about the victimization which is similar to not

taking the victimization personally. The final factor analysis resulted in a conceptuallymeaningful four factor solution that accounted for 50% of the variance: self-efficacy for

avoiding aggressive behaviour, self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame, self-efficacy for

proactive behaviour, and self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement. The items for self-

efficacy for forgivingness loaded on the self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour

scale, they were retained on this scale as it was considered that self-efficacy for

forgivingness may be central to self-efficacy for avoiding revenge seeking. Thus, it was

conceptually meaningful to retain the items on this scale.

Separate internal-consistency analyses were conducted for the four factors and itemsthat resulted in a reduction of the Cronbach alpha for that scale were deleted. One item

was deleted from the self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement scale. The factor

analysis results did not vary by gender or grade. The first factor, self-efficacy for avoiding

aggressive behaviour, consisted of eleven items with a Cronbach alpha of .90. Self-

efficacy for avoiding self-blame was the second factor which consisted of ten items with

a Cronbach alpha of .90. The third factor, self-efficacy for proactive behaviour, included

fifteen items with a Cronbach alpha of .87. The final factor, self-efficacy for victim-role

disengagement, consisted of eight items with a Cronbach alpha of .90. Table 1 displaysthe final factor loadings for each of the 44 items.

Confirmatory factor analyses. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to

examine the replicability of the four-factor solution obtained in the exploratory factor

analyses. To evaluate the fit of the model, the chi-squared tests of model fit and several

descriptive fit indices (Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)) were examined. Hu and Bentler (1999)

suggest that CFI and TLI values of .95 or higher and RMSEA values of .06 or lower

indicate good model fit. On the other hand, Vandenberg and Lance (2000), on the basisof an extensive amount of research, recommend cut-off values of .90 for CFI and

associated indices and .08 for RMSEA as acceptable. They argue that when deciding on

good model fit, the Hu and Benter criteria be used as high confidence limits and their

recommended cut-offs as acceptable lower bounds of model fit. This approach was

followed to evaluate model fit and has also been utilized by other authors developing

coping self-efficacy scales (see Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006).

A four factor model was specified. Descriptive model fit indices indicated adequate

model fit, x2(850, N ¼ 2,161Þ ¼ 4,497.64, p ¼ :0005, CFI ¼ :92, TLI ¼ :91,RMSEA ¼ :05. Although the chi-squared value was significant the other fit indices

which are less influenced by sample size indicate satisfactory model fit. Separate group

analyses were conducted to test the model fit across gender and grade. The results



Table 1. Factor structure and factor loadings for items of the PA-CSES

Factor loadings

Coping self-efficacy domains and items 1 2 3 4

1. Self-efficacy for proactive behaviourAsk a friend for advice .65Talk to someone about how it made you feel .64Get help from a friend .61Get help from a family member .50Try and think of different ways to fix it .48Ask a family member for advice .48Give the kid picking on you an ‘I’ message(e.g. I don’t like you doing that)

.47

Try extra hard to keep it from happening again .46In a clear and strong voice tell them that youdon’t like what they are doing

.46

Talk to the teacher about it .46Change something about yourself so you candeal with the situation better

.42

Make a plan to get along with the kid whowas picking on you

.41

Say something to stick up for yourself .36In a calm and pleasant manner, tell the kid to stop .33Take some time to cool off before responding .32

2. Self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviourStop yourself from swearing out loud .70Avoid getting mad and throwing or hitting something .69Avoid thinking about getting even with the kid .68Stay calm and avoid wanting to hurt the kid in some way .67Avoid yelling to let off steam .60Forgive and forget them picking on you .60Avoid holding a grudge against them .60Forgive them even if they have hurt you .58Keep from imagining bad things happened to the kid .58Stay calm and avoid asking a friend to helpyou get back at the kid

.57

Stop yourself from taking it out on othersbecause you feel sad or angry

.38

3. Self-efficacy for avoiding self-blameKeep from thinking, I get picked on because I’m different .75Keep from thinking, I get picked on becauseI’m not as good as them

.74

Avoid thinking, I get picked on because of the way I look .71Avoid thinking, I am the one to blame for this .71Keep from thinking, it only happens to me .68Avoid thinking, I am the one responsible forwhat happened

.68

Keep from thinking, why do they only pick on me? .66Stop thinking, they do this to me becauseI won’t cause trouble

.63



indicated that the model fit did not vary by gender (x2(1,884, N ¼ 2,161Þ ¼ 7,188.67,

p ¼ :0005, CFI ¼ :89, TLI ¼ :89, RMSEA ¼ :04) or across grade (x2(3,400,

N ¼ 2,161Þ ¼ 8,476.10, p ¼ :0005, CFI ¼ :89, TLI ¼ :90, RMSEA ¼ :03).1

Grade and gender differences in coping self-efficacyTo investigate grade and gender differences in coping self-efficacy a 4 (grade) £ 2

(gender) £ 4 (coping self-efficacy: proactive behaviour, avoiding aggressive behaviour,

avoiding self-blame, victim-role disengagement) repeated measures analysis of variancewas conducted using General Linear Model (GLM). Where significant effects were

obtained post hoc tests were conducted on the means using the Bonferroni method with

an overall alpha of .01. In Table 2 the means and standard deviations for the coping self-

efficacy scale and psychological adjustments variables are presented.

Main effects were obtained for gender, Fð1; 2; 153Þ ¼ 25:70, p , :0005, partial

h2 ¼ :01, grade, Fð3; 2; 153Þ ¼ 9:16, p , :0005, partial h2 ¼ :01, and coping self-

efficacy, Fð3; 6; 459Þ ¼ 69:62, p , :0005, partial h2 ¼ :03. The gender main effect

Table 1. (Continued)

Factor loadings

Coping self-efficacy domains and items 1 2 3 4

Avoid thinking, there must be something aboutme that makes them pick on me

.61

Avoid thinking, they do this to me becauseI don’t fight back

.59

4. Self-efficacy for victim-role disengagementKeep from taking it personally by thinking,I don’t care what they think anyway

.67

Avoid taking it personally by thinking, whatthey say or do doesn’t matter to me

.67

Stop yourself from taking it personally bythinking, it’s not about me it’s their own stuff

.60

Avoid taking it personally by thinking, it doesn’tbother me because I have other friends

.56

Stop yourself from taking it personally bythinking, it doesn’t matter, I know I am goodat lots of other things

.55

Stop yourself from worrying about otherpeople thinking badly about you

.54

Stop yourself from worrying too much about it .53Stop yourself from taking it personally bythinking, I don’t value their opinion

.30

1Due to the large sample size, it was deemed important to replicate the factor structure on a smaller sample. The sample wasrandomly divided into two. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the first sample (N ¼ 1,089). The same four-factorstructure was obtained as for the whole sample, with the exception of two different crossloadings. Confirmatory factor analysiswas conducted on the second sample (N ¼ 1,072). Adequate model fit was obtained (x2(850,N ¼ 1,072) ¼ 3,060.19,p ¼ .0005, CFI ¼ .91, TLI ¼ .90, RMSEA ¼ .05) for the four factor model. These results provide further support for thefactor structure of the PA-CSES.



revealed that females (M ¼ 5:02) reported greater coping self-efficacy than did males

(M ¼ 4:80; tð2; 153Þ ¼ 5:07, p , :0005). The grade main effect revealed that students in

grade 9 (M ¼ 4:75) reported lower coping self-efficacy than students in grades 6

(M ¼ 4:98; tð2; 153Þ ¼ 3:62, p , :0005) and grade 7 (M ¼ 5:03; tð2; 153Þ ¼ 4:93,p , :0005). There was no difference between the latter two grades. The main effect of

coping self-efficacy revealed that students reported greater self-efficacy for victim-roledisengagement (M ¼ 4:96; tð2; 153Þ ¼ 10:27, p , :0005), avoiding self-blame

(M ¼ 4:98; tð2; 153Þ ¼ 9:32, p , :0005), and proactive behaviour (M ¼ 5:03;tð2; 153Þ ¼ 1:42, p , :0005), than avoiding aggressive behaviour (M ¼ 4:69). Studentsalso reported lower self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement (M ¼ 4:96) than for

proactive behaviour (M ¼ 5:03; tð2; 153Þ ¼ 14:21, p , :0005). The main effects

however, were subsumed by two higher order interactions.

There was a significant gender £ coping self-efficacy interaction,

Fð3; 6; 459Þ ¼ 64:27, p , :0005, partial h2 ¼ :03. Post hoc tests revealed, for proactivebehaviour, females (M ¼ 5:12) reported greater self-efficacy than did males (M ¼ 4:87,tð2; 153Þ ¼ 7:76, p , :0005). Males reported lower self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive

behaviour (M ¼ 4:40) than did females (M ¼ 4:98, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 10:23, p , :0005).There were no significant differences between males and females for victim-role

disengagement self-efficacy and self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame.

The grade £ coping self-efficacy interaction, Fð9; 6; 459Þ ¼ 6:48, p , :0005, partialh2 ¼ :01 also attained significance. Post hoc tests revealed that for proactive behaviour,

grade 9 (M ¼ 4:93) students reported lower self-efficacy than did students in grade 7(M ¼ 5:11, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 3:33, p , :005), but grade 9 students were not significantly

lower in self-efficacy than grade 6 (M ¼ 5:05, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 19:68, p . :01) or grade 8

(M ¼ 5:03, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 1:83, p . :01) students, who were not significantly different

from each other (tð2; 153Þ ¼ :38, p . :01). Students in grade 6 (M ¼ 4:92) reported

greater self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour than did students in grade 8

(M ¼ 4:60, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 3:70, p , :0005) and grade 9 (M ¼ 4:43, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 5:65,p , :0005). Grade 7 (M ¼ 4:81) students also reported greater self-efficacy for avoiding

aggressive behaviour than students in grade 9 (M ¼ 4:43, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 5:00, p , :0005).There were no differences between grade 7 and 8 students. For victim-role

disengagement, students in grade 9 (M ¼ 4:71) reported lower self-efficacy than

students in grade 6 (M ¼ 5:04, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 3:85, p , :0005), grade 7 (M ¼ 5:13,tð2; 153Þ ¼ 5:53, p , :0005), and grade 8 (M ¼ 4:95, tð2; 153Þ ¼ 3:18, p , :005). Therewere no significant differences between grades 6, 7, and 8. For avoiding self-blame self-

efficacy, there were no significant grade differences.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of psychological adjustment variables and coping self-efficacy

domains

Scales M SD

Self-efficacy for proactive behaviour 5.03 0.95Self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour 4.66 1.33Self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame 4.98 1.29Self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement 4.94 1.30Social anxiety 1.99 0.79Cognitive depression 0.74 0.69Externalizing 1.43 0.35



Coping self-efficacy and psychological adjustmentSupport for the construct validity of the coping self-efficacy subscales was based on the

relationship between the four coping self-efficacy domains and the psychological

adjustment measures of social anxiety, cognitive depression, and externalizing

symptoms. As shown in Table 3 the coping self-efficacy scales were generally

moderately correlated with psychological adjustment measures. The strength of therelationship between the coping self-efficacy domains varied across the psychological

adjustment measures (see Table 4). That is, social anxiety and cognitive depression were

moderately negatively correlated with self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement, self-

efficacy for avoiding self-blame, and self-efficacy for proactive behaviour, whereas

externalizing symptoms were moderately negatively associated with self-efficacy for

avoiding aggressive behaviour. In order to test whether the correlation pattern differed

by grade a group analysis was conducted to test the model fit for the different grades

while controlling for gender. In the model for which the structural covariances wereconstrained to be equal across the groups the results indicated that the pattern of results

did not vary across grade (x2ð54; N ¼ 2; 161Þ ¼ 240:96, p ¼ :0005, CFI ¼ 1, TLI ¼ 1,

RMSEA ¼ :03). Although the chi-squared value was significant the other fit indices

which are less influenced by sample size indicate adequate fit across grades (Hu &

Bentler, 1999).

Discussion

The results from this study provide evidence for the PA-CSES as a reliable and valid

measure that is multifaceted and contextualized to the peer aggression arena. Although

six domains were predicted, four conceptually meaningful domains were obtained:proactive behaviour self-efficacy, avoiding aggressive behaviour self-efficacy, avoiding

self-blame self-efficacy, and victim-role disengagement self-efficacy. The scale captures

behaviours that should be encouraged (proactive behaviour self-efficacy), responses

that should be avoided (avoiding aggressive behaviour self-efficacy), beliefs that are

enabling (victim-role disengagement self-efficacy), and those that are disabling (avoiding

self-blame self-efficacy).

One of the primary aims of this research was to develop a coping self-efficacy scale

with domains specific to children’s coping with peer aggression. Proactive behaviourssuch as support seeking, problem solving, and assertiveness, are often encouraged in

intervention programs that target peer aggression and peer victimization as these

responses are effective in managing negative peer interactions (Field, 1999; Hall, 2006;

Sharp, 1996a,b). Children also engage in responses that lead to continued victimization

and psychological maladjustment, for example, aggressive responses, revenge seeking

(Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1997; Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2004; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner,

Table 3. Correlations among coping self-efficacy domains

Coping self-efficacy domains 1 2 3 4

1. Self-efficacy for proactive behaviour .57* .49* .60*2. Self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour .39* .58*3. Self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame .62*4. Self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement

*p , .005.



2002; Mahady Wilton et al., 2000). The self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour

domain focused on children’s ability to avoid such responses. Rather than forming a fifth

domain, the self-efficacy for forgivingness items loaded on the avoiding aggressive

behaviour self-efficacy scale. Forgivingness can be seen as a process that leads to action.Worthington (2001) posits that unforgiving feelings can lead to revenge seeking. Indeed,

forgivingness predicts retaliation behaviour, with lower forgivingness being associated

with higher retaliation (Locasio, 2004). Thus, self-efficacy for forgivingness was seen as a

process than curtails revenge-seeking behaviour, and as such it was conceptually

meaningful to retain the forgivingness items within the avoiding aggressive behaviour

self-efficacy domain. The other two subscales were concerned with children’s beliefs

about the peer aggression experience. Generally, interventions programs focus on the

behavioural manner in which children respond to victimization incidents, for example,encouraging assertive behaviour, support seeking, problem solving, (Hall, 2006; Sharp,

1996a,b). Although encouraging these responses is an essential component of

intervention it is also important to include a cognitive component. Research has begun

to focus on the importance of examining adolescents’ cognitive coping strategies as

these have been important in understanding symptoms of anxiety and depression

(Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2001; Lunden et al., 2006). Indeed, within the peer

aggression context, beliefs of self-blame have been associated with psychological

maladjustment (Graham & Juvonen, 1998). The self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame scalemeasured children’s belief in their ability to avoid self-debilitating thinking. Additionally,

the self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement scale focused on children’s self-efficacy to

foster enabling beliefs.

The coping self-efficacy scale domains are important in understanding psychological

maladjustment as demonstrated by their significant correlations with social anxiety,

cognitive depression, and externalizing symptoms. Greater self-efficacy for avoiding

Table 4. Partial correlations between psychological adjustment variables and coping self-efficacy

domains by grade

PB AAB ASB VRD

Social anxietyGrade 6 2 .34** 2 .16* 2 .45** 2 .39**Grade 7 2 .34** 2 .17** 2 .44** 2 .41**Grade 8 2 .37** 2 .24** 2 .46** 2 .46**Grade 9 2 .42** 2 .13** 2 .52** 2 .49**Cognitive depressionGrade 6 2 .28** 2 .18** 2 .30** 2 .33**Grade 7 2 .29** 2 .19** 2 .33** 2 .34**Grade 8 2 .33** 2 .30** 2 .34** 2 .33**Grade 9 2 .32** 2 .20** 2 .40** 2 .41**ExternalizingGrade 6 2 .30** 2 .41** 2 .22** 2 .27**Grade 7 2 .31** 2 .48** 2 .19** 2 .26**Grade 8 2 .33** 2 .52** 2 .24** 2 .30**Grade 9 2 .25** 2 .51** 2 .16** 2 .31**

Note. Partial correlations were controlled for gender. PB ¼ proactive behaviour, AAB ¼

avoiding aggressive behaviour, ASB ¼ avoiding self–blame, and VRD ¼ victim–role disengagement.*p , :005; **p , :0005.



self-blame, victim-role disengagement, and proactive behaviour were each associated

with less psychological maladjustment, with the relationship being particularly strong

for social anxiety and cognitive depression. This is in line with previous research

(Garnefski et al., 2001; Steinhausen & Metzke, 2001). Self-efficacy for avoiding

aggressive behaviours was also associated with less psychological maladjustment,

particularly less externalizing symptoms. In sum, the more efficacious students wereabout their coping capabilities, the more they were psychologically well adjusted.

Consistent with expectations, females demonstrated greater self-efficacy for avoiding

aggressive behaviour and for proactive behaviour than did males. These findings

replicate sex differences found in the literature (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Eschenbeck,

Kohlman, & Lohaus, 2007; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Griffith, Dubow, & Ippolito,

2000). The gender difference may be attributable to a range of factors, including gender

role socialization. Boys are socialized to be independent, whereas girls are socialized to

seek interpersonal support and help from others (Bierhoff, 2002; Eisenberg & Fabes,1998). Males may have greater difficulty avoiding aggressive behaviours when

victimized as aggression is considered more normative among boys and can often be

encouraged by peers and parents (Bandura & Walters, 1959; Bjorkqvist et al., 1992).

Indeed, male victims also tend to react to aggression with counteraggression, even

though it is perceived to maintain the bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

Generally, older students were found to have lower self-efficacy for avoiding

aggressive behaviour, victim-role disengagement, and proactive behaviour, than the

younger students. The decrease in coping self-efficacy with increasing age emphasizesthe lack of coping capacity of middle adolescents. This is in accordance with previous

research (Causey & Dubow, 1992; Donaldson et al., 2000; Spirito et al., 1991)

highlighting the impaired coping capabilities in this age group. Adolescence marks a

period of increased stress and challenges (Compas, Oroson, & Grant, 1993; Jose &

Ratcliffe, 2004; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987; Seiffge-Krenke, 2000). It is a difficult

developmental period in which social and hormonal factors influence emotional

regulation and coping capabilities. Indeed, anger-related emotion regulation peaks in

middle adolescence (Hampel & Petermann, 2005). There is also an increase in self-criticism among 9- to 14-year-old children and adolescents which may impact on their

self-efficacy beliefs (Donaldson et al., 2000). Further, this self-criticism might result in

them experiencing more difficulty in disengaging from the victim role and focusing on

their positive attributes. It is interesting to note that internalizing difficulties such as

depression begin to increase at age 14 (Cyranowski, Frank, Young, & Shear, 2000) and

this is around the time that students’ coping self-efficacy also decreases. This highlights

the importance of preventative programmes for increasing students’ self-efficacy in this

period as the findings from this study show a relationship between coping self-efficacyand psychological health. However, more research is needed on the impact of age and

gender on children’s coping self-efficacy before strict guidelines for intervention are

considered. This is important because although the results were statistically significant,

the effect sizes were generally small.

These findings suggest that the PA-CSES is a useful instrument for assessing children’s

self-efficacy for using different strategies to cope with peer aggression. The self-efficacy

for proactive behaviour scale can be used to measure children’s self-efficacy for engaging

in responses associated with less psychological maladjustment and better managementof negative peer interactions. The self-efficacy for avoiding aggressive behaviour scale

can be used to measure children’s beliefs in their ability to avoid maladaptive responses

that are linked with continued victimization and negative psychological consequences.



The self-efficacy for avoiding self-blame and self-efficacy for victim-role disengagement

scales provide measurement tools for examining children’s self-efficacy for avoiding

negative beliefs and engaging in helpful cognitive processes.

Information on children’s self-efficacy beliefs could be usefully incorporated into

intervention programmes as self-efficacy beliefs influence the choices children make

about how to deal with peer aggression, the effort they expend, how long they persistwhen confronted with difficulties, and how they feel about themselves (Bandura, 1997).

Further, children’s performances on this scale could provide a basis for training-specific

coping strategies. Understanding an individual’s profile of beliefs about the coping self-

efficacy domains may help identify their areas of vulnerability in handling peer

aggression. This information could be used to guide professionals to target these areas

for improvement, which would promote psychological well-being. Indeed, increasing

self-efficacy is associated with positive functioning in numerous domains (Bandura,

1997). The strength of the coping self-efficacy framework is that these beliefs aredirectly amenable to intervention. There are four processes through which self-efficacy

can be boosted, including mastery experiences (e.g. through role plays), vicarious

experience (e.g. examining how others’ handle peer aggression), verbal persuasion (e.g.

encouragement from others), and physiological states (e.g feedback received from

physiological and emotional states when practising coping self-efficacy). These

procedures can be used in the peer aggression context to boost children’s coping

self-efficacy in the different domains.

The PA-CSES is a useful instrument for gathering information about children’scapacity to use a range of strategies to deal constructively with peer aggression. Not

all children utilize constructive coping strategies (Mahady Wilton et al., 2000). The

reasons for this are unknown. It is possible that children may not use helpful

strategies because of low self-efficacy beliefs. In social-cognitive theory, beliefs of

personal self-efficacy are the foundation of human agency (Bandura, 1997). Unless

people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have limited

incentive to act or persevere in the face of difficulties. For example, a number of

children who are victimized respond aggressively (Mahady Wilton et al., 2000).These children may revert to choosing aggressive coping strategies because they do

not believe in their ability to employ constructive strategies to deal with the

aggressive attack. Therefore, investigating children’s self-efficacy for utilizing a range

of strategies provides important information.

A limitation of the study was that only one aspect, the cognitive component, of

depression was measured. Although the validity of the coping self-efficacy scale was

demonstrated by its relationship with another internalizing measure, social anxiety,

future research could further validate the scale with a full measure of depression. It isalso important for future research to examine the extent to which children’s coping self-

efficacy in each of the four domains relates to their level of victimization, since this

study examined children’s self-efficacy for dealing with peer aggression and not

peer victimization. Further, how coping self-efficacy is related to psychological

maladjustment over time should also be examined in further research.

Acknowledgements

The research was supported in part by a New South Wales Institute of Psychiatry Research

Fellowship and a Macquarie University Research Excellence Award.



We thank Dr Alan Taylor for his advice on the statistical analysis. We are grateful to Stefanie Putter

and Taryn Tong for their help with data collection.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile.

Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2006). Forgiveness, reconciliation, and shame: Three key variables in

reducing school bullying. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 347–370.

Allison, P. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression: A study of the influence of child-

training practices and family interrelationships. New York: Ronalds Press.

Bandura, A., Blanchard, E. B., & Ritter, B. (1969). Relative efficacy of desensitization and modeling

approaches for inducing behavioral, affective, and attitudinal changes. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 13, 173–199.

Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function

of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

43, 5–21.

Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. (1985). Catecholamine

secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 53, 406–414.

Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of

perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129–1148.

Benight, C. C., Antoni, M. H., Kilbourn, K., Ironson, G., Kumar, M. A., Fletcher, M. A., et al. (1997).

Coping self-efficacy buffers psychological and physiological disturbances in HIV-infected men

following a natural disaster. Health Psychology, 16, 248–255.

Benight, C. C., Cieslak, R., Molton, I. R., & Johnson, L. E. (2008). Self-evaluative appraisals of

coping capability and posttraumatic distress following motor vehicle accidents. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 677–685.

Benight, C. C., Freyaldenhoven, R. W., Hughes, J., Ruiz, J. M., Zoschke, T. A., & Lovallo, W. R.

(2000). Coping self-efficacy and psychological distress following the Oklahoma City bombing.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1331–1344.

Benight, C. C., Harding-Taylor, A. S., Midboe, A. M., & Durham, R. L. (2004). Development and

psychometric validation of a domestic violence coping self-efficacy measure (DV-CSE).

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 505–508.

Benight, C. C., Ironson, G., & Durham, R. L. (1999). Psychometric properties of a hurricane coping

self-efficacy measure. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 379–386.

Benight, C. C., Ironson, G., Klebe, K., Carver, C. S., Wynings, C., Burnett, K., et al. (1999).

Conservation of resources and coping self-efficacy predicting distress following a natural

disaster: A causal model analysis where the environment meets the mind. Anxiety, Stress &

Coping: An International Journal, 12, 107–126.

Benight, C. C., Swift, E., Sanger, J., Smith, A., & Zeppelin, D. (1999). Coping self-efficacy as a

mediator of distress following a natural disaster. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,

2443–2464.

Bentley, K. M., & Li, A. K. (1995). Bully and victim problems in elementary schools and students’

beliefs about aggression. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 11, 153–165.

Bierhoff, H. W. (2002). Prosocial behaviour. Hove: Psychology Press.

Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight?

Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18,

117–127.



Boldizar, J. P., Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1989). Outcome values and aggression. Child

Development, 60, 571–579.

Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle school children.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73–87.

Caprara, G. V., Regalia, C., & Bandura, A. (2002). Longitudinal impact of perceived self-regulatory

efficacy on violent conduct. European Psychologist, 7, 63–69.

Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary

school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 47–59.

Cheever, K. H., & Hardin, S. B. (1999). Effects of traumatic events, social support, and self-efficacy

on adolescents’ self-health assessment. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21, 673–684.

Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, B. A., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2006). A validity and

reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11,

421–437.

Churchill, A. C., & McMurray, N. E. (1989). Self-efficacy and unpleasant intrusive thought.

Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Unpublished manuscript.

Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001).

Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential

theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.

Compas, B. E., Orosan, P. G., & Grant, K. E. (1993). Adolescent stress and coping: Implications for

psychopathology during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 331–349.

Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in

the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing

mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.

Cyranowski, J. M., Frank, E., Young, E., & Shear, K. (2000). Adolescent onset of the gender

difference in lifetime rates of major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 21–27.

Donaldson, D., Prinstein, M. J., Danovsky, M., & Spirito, A. (2000). Patterns of children’s coping

with life stress: Implications for clinicians. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70,

351–359.

Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental


Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.),

Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,

Vol. 3, pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers’ reasoning about

prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50, 356–363.

Enders, C. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data.

Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128–141.

Eschenbeck, H., Kohlmann, C. -W., & Lohaus, A. (2007). Gender differences in coping strategies in

children and adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 18–26.

Faulstich, M. E., Carey, M. P., Ruggiero, L., Enyart, P., & Gresham, F. (1986). Assessment of

depression in childhood and adolescence: An evaluation of the Center for Epidemiological

Studies Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC). American Journal of Psychiatry, 143,

1024–1027.

Feldman, E., & Dodge, K. A. (1987). Social information processing and sociometric status: Sex, age,

and situational effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 211–227.

Field, E. (1999). Bully busting: How to help children deal with teasing and bullying. Lane Cove:

Finch Publishing.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Boys play sport and girls turn to others: Age, gender and

ethnicity as determinants of coping. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 253–266.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1999). Things don’t get better just because you’re older: A case for

facilitating reflection. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 81–94.



Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation

and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 1311–1327.

Glover, D., Gough, G., Johnson, M., & Cartwright, N. (2000). Bullying in 25 secondary schools:

Incidence, impact and intervention. Educational Research, 42, 141–156.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An

attributional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 34, 587–599.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2001). An attributional approach to peer victimization. In J. Juvonen &

S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized

(pp. 49–72). New York: Guilford Press.

Griffith, M. A., Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (2000). Developmental and cross-situational

differences in adolescents’ coping strategies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 183–204.

Hall, K. R. (2006). Using problem-based learning with victims of bullying behavior. Professional

School Counseling, 9, 231–237.

Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and gender effects on coping in children and adolescents.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 73–83.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following

peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 69–89.

Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and

psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.

Hodges, E. V., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection

against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94–101.

Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the

Midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5–16.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Hunter, S. C., & Boyle, J. M. (2004). Appraisal and coping strategy use in victims of school bullying.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 83–107.

Hunter, S. C., Boyle, J. M., & Warden, D. (2004). Help seeking amongst child and adolescent

victims of peer-aggression and bullying: The influence of school-stage, gender, victimisation,

appraisal, and emotion. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 375–390.

Hunter, S. C., Boyle, J. M., & Warden, D. (2007). Perceptions and correlates of peer-victimization

and bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 797–810.

Hyre, A., Benight, C. C., Tynes, L., Rice, J., DeSalvo, K. B., & Muntner, P. (2008). Psychometric

properties of the hurricane coping self-efficacy measure following Hurricane Katrina. Journal

of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196, 562–567.

Jose, P. E., & Ratcliffe, V. (2004). Stressor frequency and perceived intensity as predictors of

internalizing symptoms: Gender and age differences in adolescence. New Zealand Journal of


Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the

weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and

school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349–359.

Karp, C. L., Butler, T. L., & Bergstrom, S. C. (1998). Treatment strategies for abused adolescents:

From victim to survivor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kent, G. (1987). Self-efficacious control over reported physiological, cognitive, and behavioural

symptoms of dental anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 25, 341–347.

Kent, G., & Gibbons, R. (1987). Self-efficacy and the control of anxious cognitions. Journal of

Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 18, 33–40.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2004). Peer victimization: The role of emotions in adaptive and

maladaptive coping. Social Development, 13, 329–349.



Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). Victimized children’s responses to peers’ aggression:

Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization. Development and

Psychopathology, 9, 59–73.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization: Relations to

children’s maladjustment. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The

plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 25–48). New York: Guilford Press.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Children’s coping strategies: Moderators of the

effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38, 267–278.

La Greca, A. M., & Stone, W. L. (1993). Social anxiety scale for children – revised: Factor structure

and concurrent validity. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 17–27.

Locasio, A. L. (2004). Should I retaliate? The role of aggression, forgivingness, moral responsibility,

and social interest in the decision to return harm for harm (Doctoral Dissertation, University of

Texas). Dissertation Abstracts International, Humanities and Social Sciences, 64, 4357.

Lunde, C., Frisen, A., & Hwang, C. P. (2006). Ten-year-old girls’ and boys’ body composition and

peer victimization experiences: Prospective associations with body satisfaction. Body Image,

4, 11–28.

Mahady Wilton, M. M., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regulation and display in

classroom victims of bullying: Characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant

contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 226–245.

McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. (Eds.), (2000). The frontiers of forgiveness:

Conceptual, empirical, and clinical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press.

Morrison, B. E. (2003). Regulating safe school communities: Being responsive and restorative.

Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 689–704.

Ochberg, F. M. (Ed.), (1988). Post-traumatic therapy and victims of violence. Philadelphia, PA:

Brunner.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying in school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ozer, E. M., & Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 472–486.

Patterson, J. M., & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors:

Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 163–186.

Perry, D. G., Williard, J. C., & Perry, L. C. (1990). Peers’ perceptions of the consequences that

victimized children provide aggressors. Child Development, 61, 1310–1325.

Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools & what to do about it. Melbourne: The Australian Council

for Educational Research.

Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48,

583–590.

Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviour and their correlates. Aggressive

Behavior, 20, 359–368.

Saigh, P. A., Mroueh, M., Zimmerman, B. J., & Fairbank, J. A. (1995). Self-efficacy expectations

among traumatized adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6, 701–704.

Salkovskis, P. M., & Harrison, J. (1984). Abnormal and normal obsessions: A replication. Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 22, 549–552.

Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1996). How do the victims respond to bullying?

Aggressive Behavior, 22, 99–109.

Sandstrom, M. J. (2004). Pitfalls of the peer world: How children cope with common rejection

experiences. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 67–81.

Schafer, J., & Graham, J. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological

Methods, 7, 147–177.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer vicitimization in

boys’ play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755–1772.

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2000). Causal links between stressful events, coping style, and adolescent

symptomatology. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 675–691.



Sharp, S. (1996a). The role of peers in tackling bullying in schools. Educational Psychology in

Practice, 11, 17–22.

Sharp, S. (1996b). Self-esteem, response style and victimization: Possible ways of preventing

victimization through parenting and school based training programmes. School Psychology

International, 17, 347–357.

Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007). The development of coping. Annual Review of


Slee, P. T. (1994). Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer

victimisation. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25, 97–107.

Spirito, A., Stark, L. J., Grace, N., & Stamoulis, D. (1991). Common problems and coping strategies

reported in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20,

531–544.

Steffen, A. M., McKibbin, C., Zeiss, A. M., Gallagher-Thompson, D., & Bandura, A. (2002). The

revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy: Reliability and validity studies. Journals of

Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57B, 74–86.

Steinhausen, H. -C., & Metzke, C. W. (2001). Global measures of impairment in children and

adolescents: Results from a Swiss community survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatry, 35, 282–286.

Todd, E. (1985). The value of confession and forgiveness according to Jung. Journal of Religion

and Health, 24, 39–47.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance

literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research.

Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle

and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35, 3–25.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2001). Unforgiveness, forgiveness and reconciliation and their implications

for societal interventions. In R. G. Helmick & R. L. Petersen (Eds.), Forgiveness and

reconciliation: Religion, public policy, and conflict transformation (pp. 161–182).

Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.

Ysseldyk, R., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2007). Rumination: Bridging a gap between

forgivingness, vengefulness, and psychological health. Personality and Individual

Differences, 42, 1573–1584.

Received 12 December 2007; revised version received 8 October 2008


The development of a Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy Scale for Adolescents

Documents

Transcript of The development of a Peer Aggression Coping Self-Efficacy Scale for Adolescents