2000 - Twenty Years’ Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment. a Meta-Analytic Review of Cross Sectional Studies

J. Child Psychol. Psychiat. Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 441–455, 2000

Cambridge University Press

' 2000 Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0021–9630}00 $15.000.00

Twenty Years’ Research on Peer Victimization and PsychosocialMaladjustment: A Meta-analytic Review of Cross-sectional Studies

David S. J. Hawker

Warneford Hospital, Oxford, U.K.

Michael J. Boulton

Keele University, U.K.

Cross-sectional quantitative designs are often used to investigate whether peer victimizationis positively related to psychosocial maladjustment. This paper presents a meta-analyticreview of cross-sectional studies, published between 1978 and 1997, of the association of peervictimization with psychosocial maladjustment. Mean effect sizes were calculated for theassociation between peer victimization and each form of maladjustment (depression,loneliness, generalized and social anxiety, and global and social self-worth) assessed. Theresults suggested that victimization is most strongly related to depression, and least stronglyrelated to anxiety. There was no evidence that victimization is more strongly related to socialthan to psychological forms of maladjustment. Effect sizes were stronger when the sameinformants were used to assess both victimization and maladjustment than when differentinformants were used. There were some design limitations to the studies reviewed, but alltogether their results provide a strong background for more complex research into the courseand treatment of victims’ distress.

Keywords: Bullying, cross-cultural, internalizing disorder, meta-analysis, peer relationships,victimization.

Introduction

Peer victimization is the experience among children ofbeing a target of the aggressive behaviour of otherchildren, who are not siblings and not necessarily age-mates. Peer victimization is a problem of growing concernfor researchers, educators, and clinicians (e.g., Ambert,1995; Dawkins, 1995; Hazler & Hoover, 1996; Olweus,1993a; Ross, 1996; Slee & Rigby, 1994). Childrentargeted for peer aggression are variously described asbeing bullied (e.g., Olweus, 1993a; Rigby, 1996; Whitney& Smith, 1993), being victimized (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter,1996; Perry, Kusel, & Perry, 1988), or sometimes as beingrejected (e.g., Vernberg, 1990). In this paper, we refer tostudies which used any of these terms, provided that theymade some measurement of the experience of being atarget of peers’ aggressive behaviour.

In recent years growing numbers of investigators haveasked whether victims of peer aggression experiencepsychosocial maladjustment (depression, anxiety, lowself-esteem, and the like). It is clearly important to knowthe answer to this question, so that children’s distressdoes not go unrecognized. A common way of addressingit empirically is with cross-sectional designs. In thesedesigns quantitative methods are used to investigate therelation between children’s experiences of peer victim-ization and maladjustment, both assessed at a singlepoint in time. Cross-sectional studies of this type are

Request for reprints to: David S. J. Hawker, Oxford RegionalTraining Course in Clinical Psychology, Isis Education Centre,Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX, U.K. (E-mail :David.Hawker!oxmhc-tr.anglox.nhs.uk.)

increasing in number rapidly. At least six were publishedin1998alone (Craig, 1998;Crick&Bigbee, 1998;Graham& Juvonen, 1998; Kumpulainen et al., 1998; Salmon,James, & Smith, 1998; Stanley & Arora, 1998).

Independently of such studies, converging theoreticaland empirical perspectives suggest that victims may suffergreater psychosocial maladjustment than nonvictims.First, a number of theorists have argued that certainsocial psychological experiences, reminiscent of peervictimization, play a central role in the development ofdepression and of other forms of psychosocial mal-adjustment. For example, Gilbert (1992) outlined howattacks on peer-group rank, with strong similarities tophysical victimization, maintain depression; Baumeisterand Leary (1995) suggested that threats to social bonds(cf. relational victimization) can lead to anxiety, lone-liness, or depression. Second, empirical research hasshown that certain types of maladjustment (such asloneliness, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem) arepositively associated with such peer relationship diffi-culties as submissiveness, social withdrawal, and un-popularity with peers (e.g., Parkhurst & Asher, 1992;Strauss, Lahey, Frick, Frame, & Hynd, 1988; Vosk,Forehand, Parker, & Rickard, 1982; Walker & Greene,1986). These peer relationship difficulties are themselvespositively related to peer victimization (e.g., Bjo$ rkqvist,Ekman, & Lagerspetz, 1982; Boivin, Hymel, &Bukowski, 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Perry et al.,1988; Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993).

Thus there are strong a priori reasons to hypothesizethat the pattern of results, from cross-sectional studies ofpeer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment, willshow that these two experiences are positively related.

441

442

D.S.J.

HA

WK

ER

AN

DM

.J.

BO

UL

TO

N

Table 1Forms of Victimization Assessed in Cross-sectional Adjustment Research

Victimizationcategory

Description of target’s experience used in operationaldefinition of victimization Studies using description to define victimization

Indirect Target sent nasty notes Boulton & Underwood (1992)Lies told about target Crick & Grotpeter (1996)Mean things said to others about target Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)Target talked about behind back Kupersmidt et al. (1997)Rumours spread about target Sharp (1996)

Relational Target not allowed to take part} be in group Alsaker (1993)*; Crick & Grotpeter (1996)Target kept} left out Alsaker (1993)*; Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997)Target sent to Coventry} no-one would talk to target Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Sharp (1996)Target told that another won’t like target unless target doeswhat the other says

Crick & Grotpeter (1996)

Target rejected Kupersmidt et al. (1997)

Physical Target hit Alsaker (1993)*; Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boivin & Hymel (1997)*; Boivin et al. (1995)*;Boulton & Smith (1994) ; Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995;self-reported victimization) ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996) ;Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby &Slee (1992) ; Sharp (1996) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b); Vernberg (1990)

Target pushed Alsaker (1993)*; Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boivin & Hymel (1997)*; Boivin et al. (1995)*;Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995; self-reported victimization) ;Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee (1992) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby(1993b); Vernberg (1990)

Target kicked Alsaker (1993)*; Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Sharp (1996)Target’s hair pulled Alsaker (1993)*; Crick & Grotpeter (1996)Target locked inside a room Boulton & Underwood (1992)Others pick} start fights with target Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*Others rough with target Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*Target shoved Crick & Grotpeter (1996) ; Vernberg (1990)‘‘Bullying…can be physical ’’ O’Moore & Hillery (1991)Target’s belongings taken Sharp (1996)

443

PE

ER

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N

Verbal Target teased Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Boulton & Smith (1994) ; Byrne (1994) ; Callaghan & Joseph(1995; self-reported victimization) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994;self-reported victimization) ; Olweus (1978)*; Vernberg (1990)

Target laughed at} ridiculed Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Byrne (1994) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995; self-reportedvictimization) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994; self-reportedvictimization) ; Olweus (1978)*

Target called names} nasty names Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995; self-reported victimization) ; Mynard& Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph (1994; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee(1992) ; Sharp (1996) ; Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b)

Nasty} unpleasant} mean things said to target Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996)Target threatened Boulton & Underwood (1992) ; Sharp (1996)‘‘Bullying…can be mental ’’ O’Moore & Hillery (1991)

Generic Target picked on Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995; self-reported victimization) ;Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ;Neary & Joseph (1994; self-reported victimization) ; Rigby & Slee (1992) ; Slee (1994b,1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b); Vernberg (1990)

Target bullied Austin & Joseph (1996) ; Callaghan & Joseph (1995; self-reported and peer-reportedvictimization) ; Kupersmidt et al. (1997) ; Mynard & Joseph (1997) ; Neary & Joseph(1994; self-reported and peer-reported victimization) ; Rigby (1996) ; Slee (1994a)

Target harassed or tormented Bjo$ rkqvist et al. (1982)*; Lagerspetz et al. (1982)Others try to hurt target’s feelings Boivin & Hymel (1997)*; Boivin et al. (1995)Mean} nasty things done to target Boivin & Hymel (1997)*; Boivin et al. (1995)*; Boulton & Smith (1994)Target exposed to aggression Byrne (1994) ; Olweus (1978)*Target made fun of Slee (1994b, 1995b,c) ; Slee & Rigby (1993b)

* The reported description of victims’ experience was a translation into English of a term in another language.

444 D. S. J. HAWKER AND M. J. BOULTON

Unfortunately there has been no systematic or meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies of this type. Asa consequence there is little awareness in the literatureabout the strength of empirical evidence concerningvictims’ distress. Investigators typically cite a smallnumber of results, from a limited range of studies, whichmay not be representative. The absence of evaluativereviews is unfortunate because many of the forms ofpsychosocial maladjustment investigated separately inthese studies are conceptually and empirically relatedamongst themselves (see, e.g., Eason, Finch, Brasted, &Saylor, 1985; Leary, 1990; West, Kellner, & Moorewest,1986). In this paper we address the question of victims’psychosocial maladjustment not with a new cross-sec-tional study, but by collating and evaluating the results ofprevious studies in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis offersa quantitative summary of the effect sizes reported inquantitative research papers, and reduces the bias in-herent in purely qualitative review papers (e.g.,Rosenthal, 1995).

Forms of Victimization and Adjustment

Cross-sectional studies have typically measured peervictimization by asking respondents how much they orothers experience being the targets of particular examplesof aggression, such as being harassed, hit, or teased. Insome studies (e.g. O’Moore & Hillery, 1991) theseexperiences are combined in a single item as examples of‘‘bullying’’, and children are asked how much they arebullied. More commonly (e.g., Boivin & Hymel, 1997;Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Slee, 1994b), victimizationexperiences are dispersed across several items of a scalewhose summed scores provide an index of victimization.As several different labels have been used to classify theseexamples of victimization, it is useful to consider thespecific examples of experiences that have been used insingle-item and multiple-item measures of victimization.These examples are listed in Table 1 alongside the studiesin which they were used, and the category in which theyare grouped in the present review. Five categories(indirect, relational, physical, verbal, and generic victim-ization) are used to classify them, for the reasonsdescribed below.

Recent European researchers have distinguishedamong physical, verbal, and indirect victimization(Bjo$ rkqvist, 1994; Rivers & Smith, 1994). In NorthAmerica Crick and colleagues (1999) have influentiallydistinguished physical and relational victimization. Rela-tional victimization is similar to indirect victimizationand both share some items in their operationaldefinitions. But, as Crick et al. pointed out, indirect andrelational aggression are conceptually distinct. Indirectaggression is defined as aggression which is enactedthrough a third party or so that the aggressor cannot beidentified by the victim (Bjo$ rkqvist, 1994). Relationalaggression is defined as behaviour which causes, orthreatens to cause, damage to peer relationships, andparticularly to friendship and acceptance (Crick et al.,1999). In the present review and in Table 1, therefore, wehave attempted to distinguish indirect and relationalvictimization experiences according to the abovedefinitions.

Alongside relational and indirect victimization, physi-cal victimization is considered here as any form ofvictimization in which the victim’s physical integrity isattacked. Verbal victimization is considered victimization

in which the victim’s status is attacked or threatened withwords or vocalizations. There are some conceptualdifficulties in labelling this form of victimization as‘‘verbal ’’, in that words are also used to exclude victims(relational victimization) or to harm them through thirdparties (indirect victimization). But the types of experi-ence grouped as ‘‘verbal ’’ in Table 1 are frequentlydescribed as ‘‘verbal ’’ in the literature (e.g., Bjo$ rkqvist,1994; Perry et al., 1988; Rivers & Smith, 1994), and so itis appropriate to describe them as such here. Finally,generic victimization denotes nonspecific descriptions ofvictimization experiences, which could include any of theother forms of victimization.

In most of the cross-sectional studies reviewed here,correlational methods, or tests of difference betweenmean scores for victims, nonvictims, and other groupshave been used to express the associations between one ormore of these forms of peer victimization and psycho-social adjustment. The forms of psychosocial maladjust-ment included here are : depressed or dysphoric mood,loneliness, low social and global self-esteem and self-worth, and generalized and social anxiety. These are theprincipal forms of psychosocial maladjustment whichhave been investigated previously. It is not our intentionto present an exhaustive review that would include othermeasures which might be described as psychosocialmaladjustment. We will not include generalized measuresof internalizing distress (such as general maladjustmentand inadequacy, as assessed by Olweus, 1978), nonsocial,nongeneral aspects of children’s self-concepts (such asacademic, physical, or behavioural self-competence, asassessed by Austin & Joseph, 1996), measures relatedmainly to school adjustment (such as school liking, asassessed by Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), forms ofadjustment which have rarely been investigated in cross-sectional studies (such as self-restraint, measured byCrick & Bigbee, 1998), or behaviourally orientedmeasures of internalizing problems (such as social with-drawal or submissiveness).

Source of Informants and Shared Method Variance

The informants who have been asked to make assess-ments of victimization in cross-sectional studies haveincluded not only the children in the cohort (giving self-reports), but also their teachers, parents, or peers. Insome of the studies reviewed, victimization and ad-justment have been assessed by asking questions of thesame informants ; for instance, both have been assessedby self-reports (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1996). In otherstudies, separate informants have been used to measureseparate variables ; for example, Boivin and Hymel (1997)assessed victimization by peer report and loneliness byself-report.

Recently several studies have compared the adjustmentcorrelates of peer-assessed and self-assessed victimization(Crick & Bigbee, 1998; Graham & Juvonen, 1998;Haselager, 1997). In these studies, self-reported victim-ization was more strongly associated than peer-reportedvictimizationwith self-reportedmaladjustment, and peer-reported victimization was more strongly associated thanself-reported victimization with peer-reported maladjust-ment. In other words, effect sizes were larger wheninformants were the same than when they were different.To explain such findings the investigators proposed avariety of explanations. The most parsimonious expla-nation, and the most useful for present purposes, was

445PEER VICTIMIZATION

suggested by Crick and Bigbee (1998) and Haselager(1997), and that is that the results are due to sharedmethod variance.

When the same method is used to assess outcome andpredictor variables, any resulting correlation betweenoutcome and predictor could be explained partly by thefact that measurement variance is shared between the twovariables (e.g., Olweus, 1993b). Thus, a correlationbetween how unhappy children feel, and how victimizedthey say they are, may not primarily represent theassociation between victimization and unhappiness perse. Instead it may represent the extent to which childrenwho have negative feelings about one aspect of their lifetend also to have negative feelings about another aspect.Or it may reflect the tendency of depressives to selectivelyrecall negative events (cf. Hammen & Glass, 1975). Incontrast, a correlation between children’s own feelings ofunhappiness, and their degree of victimization as assessedby the reports of other informants, is not so open to suchalternative interpretation. Other investigators in the fieldof peer relations have made similar points (e.g., Kuper-smidt & Patterson, 1991), and recommended that out-come and predictor variables be assessed from different(or multiple) sources. When victimization is assessed bydifferent informants from those assessing adjustment, inthe studies reviewed here, it is assumed that sharedmethod variance has been avoided as an alternativeexplanation of significant results.

Summary of Research Aims

Thus, in the present meta-analysis we aimed to collatethe results of cross-sectional studies that have madeseparate measurements of peer victimization (of generic,physical, relational, indirect, or verbal types) and psycho-social maladjustment (in the form of measures of de-pressive or anxious symptoms, loneliness, and negativeglobal and social self-concepts). For the theoretical andempirical reasons outlined earlier, we predicted thatvictimization would be positively related to each of theseforms of maladjustment.

As well as summarizing effect sizes across studies, weaimed to note a number of their attributes which seemedimportant for an evaluation. These included participants’sex, age groups, and nationalities ; the subtypes ofvictimization measured; the source of informants (self-,peer, teacher, or parent reports) ; the presence of sharedmethod variance in effect sizes ; and the nature ofadjustment measurements used. As shared method vari-ance potentially has a major impact on the magnitude ofeffect sizes, we separated effect size summaries accordingthe degree of shared method variance present in measure-ments.

Method

Literature Search

We attempted to locate all cross-sectional studies of peervictimization and psychosocial maladjustment published be-tween 1978, when the influential work of Olweus appeared, andthe end of June 1997. Although it would have been interestingto add more recent studies, a great number of cross-sectionalinvestigations were already published by that date. As they arecontinually being added to, it was necessary to place a limit onthe time period to be sampled.

Published studies were located using a variety of recursivemethods. We searched electronic databases, PsycLit, BIDS ISISocial Science Citation Index, and OCLC Firstsearch, using

keywords ‘‘bully*’’ and ‘‘vict* ’’, and also the names of knownbullying and peer victimization researchers. We consultedSkinner’s (1996) bibliography of bullying literature. We soughtrelevant publications cited in reviews of the bullying literatureand elsewhere in the peer relations literature. We followed upcitations, in articles and book chapters retrieved by thesemethods, that referred to other work on victims’ adjustment.We conducted hand searches of journals in which papers onvictims’ adjustment had previously been published, and wewrote to authors who had published in the field, asking for anyrelevant publications of which we were not aware. Manuscriptsretrieved in this way which remained unpublished by June 1997were not included in the meta-analysis.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

This meta-analysis followed the procedures outlined byRosenthal (1984) and Strube (1985) for calculating effect sizes,based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), and standardnormal deviates (Z-scores), for each study, and one-tailedprobability values (as recommended by Rosenthal) for meaneffect sizes. Pearson’s r was chosen as the measure of effect size(Rosenthal, 1984) for summarizing studies in this meta-analysis.These rs, based on correlations between a continuum ofvictimization and psychosocial maladjustment, amounted to acomparison of victims with nonvictims.

Direct estimates of r were available from some studies asPearson’s rs (Alsaker, 1993; Austin & Joseph, 1996; Boivin &Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995, formaladjustment of self-assessed victims; Kochenderfer & Ladd,1996; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994, formaladjustment of self-assessed victims; Rigby & Slee, 1992;Slee, 1994a,b, 1995c; Vernberg, 1990), multiple Rs (Crick &Grotpeter, 1996), or εs (Olweus, 1978). When rs were notavailable (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982; Boulton & Smith, 1994;Byrne, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995, for maladjustment ofpeer-assessed victims; Neary& Joseph, 1994, for maladjustmentof peer-assessed victims; O’Moore & Hillery, 1991; Sharp,1996; Slee & Rigby, 1993b), we computed rs from the statisticsreported by the authors, according to formulae provided byRosenthal (1984). In some studies (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982;Boulton & Smith, 1994; Lagerspetz, Bjo$ rkqvist, Berts, & King,1982; Olweus, 1978) victims were compared with tightly definedgroups such as bullies, well-adjusted children, or not-involvedchildren. In these studies, effect sizes (ωs, equivalent to rs—seeHowell, 1992) were calculated from the omnibus Fs (if available)from analyses in which data from all groups of participants hadbeen included. Omnibus Fs were not available in the studiespublished by Lagerspetz et al. (1982) and Slee and Rigby(1993b), but within-group means and standard deviations were.From these, rs were computed via omnibus Fs (for Lagerspetz etal., 1982), and Hedge’s g (Rosenthal, 1984; for Slee & Rigby,1993b).

Mean effect sizes were calculated separately for studies inwhich the shared method variance was, and was not, present inthe effect. The first of the present authors calculated Z-statistics,and mean effect sizes and significance levels, using formulaeprovided by Rosenthal (1984) and Strube (1985), and tables forcalculating Fisher’s transformation of r to transformed r«(necessary for the computation of unbiased mean effect sizes)from Howell (1992). When effect sizes were reported separatelyfor more than one independent group of participants (e.g.,males and females in Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c), the means of the rsand Zs reported or computed were displayed in the meta-analysis. When more than one test of the same hypothesis wascarried out, within a single study, on a single group ofparticipants (Boivin et al., 1995; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996;Slee, 1994b; Vernberg, 1990), mean rs were calculated usingRosenthal’s formula, and mean Zs using Strube’s adjustedformula for nonindependence of hypotheses. The same pro-cedure was followed to combine effect sizes across subtypes ofvictimization, from studies in which effects were reported formore than one subtype (Alsaker, 1993; Crick & Grotpeter,1996). In these instances, correlations between repeated


measures were used in adjusting for dependence, as recom-mended by Strube. There was one instance in which differentanalyses of the same data set had been published separately(Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995). When effect sizescould be estimated from both publications (as for loneliness)they were taken from the study with the larger data set (Boivin& Hymel, 1997). When more than one test had been carried out,but full details (i.e., statistical values and, if necessary, thesample size) had not been reported (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982;Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Olweus, 1978), the first authorcomputed the smallest possible effect size from the resultsavailable. This was not possible in Callaghan and Joseph’sstudy, as they published only the maximum effect sizes in theirreport, and so these were used instead.

Results

Overview of Study Attributes

Variety of participants. The victimization-adjustmentassociation has been investigated among an impressivevariety of populations. Both boys and girls have beenconsidered in most studies, although only girls wereincluded in Neary and Joseph’s (1994) study, and onlyboys in two studies (Olweus, 1978; Slee & Rigby, 1993b).The age range of children studied is also broad: it hasincluded infant and preschool children (Alsaker, 1993;Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996) and adolescents (Bjo$ rkqvistet al., 1982; Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Olweus, 1978; Rigby& Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a, 1995b; Vernberg, 1990). Butmost of the studies ’ participants have been in their middlechildhood (agedbetween 8 and 13 years :Austin& Joseph,1996; Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton& Smith, 1994; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Crick &Grotpeter, 1996; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary &Joseph, 1994; O’Moore & Hillery, 1991; Sharp, 1996;Slee, 1994b, 1995c; Slee & Rigby, 1993b).

Participants have been drawn from a variety ofcountries. These include Australia (Rigby, 1996; Rigby& Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995a,b,c ; Slee & Rigby,1993a,b) ; French Canada (Boivin & Hymel, 1997; Boivinet al., 1995) ; Northern Ireland (Callaghan & Joseph,1995) ; the Irish Republic (Byrne, 1994; Neary & Joseph,1994; O’Moore & Hillery, 1991) ; Finland (Bjo$ rkqvist etal., 1982; Lagerspetz et al., 1982) ; Norway (Alsaker,1993) ; Sweden (Olweus, 1978) ; the United States (Crick& Grotpeter, 1996; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996;Vernberg, 1990) ; and mainland Britain (Austin & Joseph,1996; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Boulton & Underwood,1992; MacLeod & Morris, 1996; Mynard & Joseph,1997; Sharp, 1996; Williams, Chambers, Logan, &Robinson, 1996). With the exception of two studies of asingle French-speaking group of children (Boivin &Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995), all the participantshave been English-speaking or Scandinavian.

Subtypes of victimization. In most of the studiesreviewed, subtypes of victimization were not assessedseparately. Rather, victimization has been measured as acomposite of two or more subtypes (Austin & Joseph,1996; Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982; Boivin & Hymel, 1997;Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Byrne, 1994;Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996;Lagerspetz et al., 1982; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary &Joseph, 1994; Olweus, 1978; O’Moore & Hillery, 1991;Rigby & Slee, 1992; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee &Rigby, 1993b; Vernberg, 1990). Physical and verbalvictimization (or at least forms of victimization ap-proximating their definitions above) have generally been

included in these victimization composites, or whensubtypes were distinguished.

Assessments of victimization have included relationalor indirect victimization in only five of the publishedstudies reviewed (Alsaker, 1993: relational victimizationonly; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Kochenderfer & Ladd,1996: indirect victimization only; Sharp, 1996; andBoulton & Underwood, 1992, in which data for thecalculation of effect sizes were not published). Addition-ally, in some studies (Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982; Lagerspetzet al., 1982; Slee, 1994a) only a generic form ofvictimization has been assessed, without further speci-fication of the types of victimization that are meant.

Source of informants. Victimization has most com-monly been assessed by self-report or peer report (e.g.,Austin & Joseph, 1996; Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982; Boivin &Hymel, 1997; Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994;Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996;Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Lagerspetz et al., 1982;Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994;O’Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1992; Sharp,1996; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b;Vernberg, 1990). Psychosocial maladjustment has usuallybeen measured by self-report (e.g., Austin & Joseph,1996; Bjo$ rkqvist et al., 1982; Boivin & Hymel, 1997;Boivin et al., 1995; Boulton & Smith, 1994; Byrne, 1994;Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996;Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Lagerspetz et al., 1982;Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994;O’Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby & Slee, 1992; Sharp,1996; Slee, 1994a,b, 1995b,c ; Slee & Rigby, 1993b;Vernberg, 1990).

Effects of Victimization on ContemporaneousMaladjustment

Overview. Tables 2 to 6 summarize the results ofpublished studies of the relationship between victim-ization and each form of psychosocial maladjustment.The number and age-range of participants contributingto the effect size are displayed in the second and thirdcolumns of each table. Unless otherwise indicated,children of both sexes participated in the studies. In thefourth column is an indications of the type of informants’reports used to assess victimization (self-, peer, teacher,or parent reports). In the fifth column is a description ofthe subtypes of victimization assessed, as far as can bedetermined from the authors’ descriptions, and accordingto the classification laid out in Table 1 (generic, physical,verbal, relational, or indirect). These are noted in ab-breviated form, as indicated in the footnotes to eachtable.

The effects in each table are separated according towhether there was shared method variance due to sharedinformants present in the effect. For example, if bothvictimization and maladjustment were assessed by self-report, shared method variance was not avoided as anexplanation of effect size. If victimization was assessed bypeer report, and maladjustment by self-report, sharedmethod variance was avoided as an explanation of effectsize.

In the final columns of Tables 2 to 6 the effect size r andthe corresponding Z-score are reported. Within eachcategory of effect (with and without shared methodvariance) studies are listed in order of increasing effectsize. Mean effect sizes and their overall significance levels


Table 2Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Depression

Study NAge range

(years)Victimizationinformants

Victimizationsubtypesa r Z

With shared method varianceVernberg (1990) 73 12–14 Self GPV .23 1.80Slee (1995b) 220 12–17 Self GPV .26 3.86Slee (1994a) 363 12–15 Self G .31 5.72Bjo$ rkqvist et al. (1982) 67 14–16 Peers G .38 2.33Austin & Joseph (1996) 425 8–11 Self GPV .39 7.93Crick & Grotpeter (1996) 438 8–12 Self PRI .42 8.79Slee (1995c) 290 M¯ 10.9 Self GPV .51 8.60Callaghan & Joseph (1995) 120 10–12 Self GPVb .53 4.21Neary & Joseph (1994)c 60 10–12 Self GPVb .81 6.27

Mean effect size .45****

Avoiding shared method varianceBoivin et al. (1995) 567 9–12 Peers GPV .24 5.41Callaghan & Joseph (1995) 63 10–12 Peers Gb .26 2.85Neary & Joseph (1994)c 60 10–12 Peers Gb .36 2.79


a G¯ generic victimization; P¯physical victimization; V¯ verbal victimization; R¯ relational victimization; I¯ indirectvictimization.

b Separate effect sizes were published for peer-reported and self-reported victimization.c Girls only.**** p! .0001.

are shown separately for studies with and without sharedmethod variance. In the display of effect sizes, the valenceof negative rs and Zs is reversed when these indicate anegative relationship between victimization and mal-adjustment. Thus, the effect sizes presented in Tables 2 to6, which were all positive, represent the magnitude ofpositive associations between victimization and mal-adjustment found in each study. One-tailed significancelevels, as recommended by Rosenthal (1984), are givenfor the overall Z-score, but not for individual Z-scores,because it is the overall significance level which is ofinterest.

Depression. It is clear from the studies presented inTable 2 that victimization is positively associated withdepression. Mean effect sizes were significantly greaterthan zero (p! .0001) whether or not there was sharedmethod variance in the effect. Victims of peer aggressiontended to be more depressed than nonvictims. Effect sizeswere smaller when shared method variance was avoidedthan when it was not. When victimization was assessed bypeers, and depression by self-report, the mean effect sizewas r¯ .29, representing 8.4% shared variance. Therange was .24 to .36. When both victimization anddepression were assessed by self-report, the mean effectsize was r¯ .45 (20.3% shared variance), with a range of.23 to .81. Nevertheless, victimization and depressionwere clearly associated independently of shared methodvariance.

Similar findings have been made in research which isnot summarized in Table 2, and which used slightlydifferent dependent measures. MacLeod and Morris(1996) reported that over 4% of a sample of children whocalled a bullying telephone helpline had expressed suicidalthoughts. These authors did not make a comparison tothe prevalence of suicidal thoughts in the normal popu-lation, or among callers to helplines that are not specifi-cally targeted at victims of peer aggression, however.Rigby (1996) found that among secondary school chil-dren victims were twice as likely as nonvictims to report

suicidal thoughts and other symptoms of depression".Other researchers have also found that victims ratethemselves as generally less happy (Rigby & Slee, 1992;Williams et al., 1996), or less happy in a school context(Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Slee, 1995a,c ; Slee &Rigby, 1993a), than nonvictims. Data concerning un-happiness and suicidal ideation are not included in Table2, as there was an abundance of studies which used well-validated measures of depression, such as the Children’sDepression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992—used by Boivin etal., 1995; and Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) and the De-pression Self-Rating Scale (Birleson, 1981—used byAustin & Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Neary& Joseph, 1994; and Slee, 1995c).

The major limitation of depression-victimization re-search is in its measurement of victimization. Only onestudy measured relational or indirect victimization (Crick& Grotpeter, 1996), and this study did not include verbalvictimization. Only one study (Boivin et al., 1995) usedmore than one item to assess peer-reported victimization.

Loneliness. Fewer studies have been published in whichloneliness was the dependent variable. In these studies themean effect size from published studies was smaller forloneliness than for depression. Nevertheless, it is clearfrom the studies presented in Table 3 that loneliness ispositively associated with victimization. Mean effect sizeswere significantly greater than zero (p! .0001), whetheror not sharedmethod variancewas avoided. The tendencywas, again, for effects to be smaller when shared methodvariance was avoided (mean r¯ .25, range¯ .15 to .34)than when it was not (mean r¯ .32, range¯ .14 to .49).On average, loneliness and victimization shared 6.3% ofvariance when there was no shared method variance, and10.2% of variance when there was shared methodvariance.

" Rigby (1996) did not report total depression scores thatwould allow computation of effect sizes.


Table 3Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Loneliness

Study NAge range



With shared method varianceAlsaker (1993) 120 6–7 Self, teachers, peers,

parentsPVR .14 1.50

Kochenderfer & Ladd (1996) 200 5–6 Self GPVI .31 4.76Crick & Grotpeter (1996) 438 8–12 Self PRI .49 10.25


Avoiding shared method varianceAlsaker (1993) 120 6–7 Self, teachers, peers,

parentsPVR .15 1.66

Boivin & Hymel (1997) 798 8–10 Peers GPV .34 9.57


a G¯ generic victimization; P¯physical victimization; V¯ verbal victimization; R¯ relational victimization; I¯ indirectvictimization.

**** p! .0001.

Thus, victims were more lonely than nonvictims,irrespective of shared method variance. Similar con-clusions have been drawn from unpublished data cited inpublished reports (Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Slee &Rigby, 1994), and can be drawn from an analysis ofBoivin and Hymel’s (1997) data with a smaller sample(Boivin et al., 1995). Most of the studies (Boivin &Hymel, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Slee & Rigby,1994) employed a well-validated measure of loneliness—the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Scale (Asher &Wheeler, 1985), or its equivalent for younger children(used by Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). It is possible thatother measures of loneliness are not so strongly correlatedwith victimization, given the smaller effect sizes calculatedfrom Alsaker’s (1993) data. Diverse forms of victimiz-ation are fairly well represented in effect sizes, althoughnone can be calculated from victimization measureswhich comprised all four of physical, verbal, relational,and indirect victimization.

Anxiety and social anxiety. In the literature it is fairlycommon to find victimization positively correlated withsome measure of social anxiety (e.g., Alsaker, 1993;Boulton & Smith, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Slee,1994b), or with constructs that are similar but notequivalent to anxiety, such as neuroticism (Byrne, 1994;Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Slee & Rigby, 1994) or anxiousself-concept (O’Moore & Hillery, 1991). Studies of therelationship between victimization and generalizedanxiety are less common. In two separate studies, Slee(1994a, 1995b) found that victimization was positivelycorrelated with anxiety measured as a subscale of apublished health symptom checklist. Using the sameitems from this checklist (but not combining them in asingle index of anxiety), Rigby (1996) also found moresymptoms of anxiety among victims than nonvictims.Olweus (1978) and Lagerspetz et al. (1982) found thatvictimization was positively correlated with unvalidatedmeasures of anxiety. In unpublished studies Pierce (1990)and Kupersmidt, Voegler, Sigda, and Sedikides (1997)have also shown that anxiety was positively related tovictimization.

The studies are summarized separately for social andgeneralized anxiety in Table 4, with an indication of themeasures of anxiety used. Table 4 shows that the meaneffect sizes for social and generalized anxiety were barelydifferent from one another. Victims were more generally

and socially anxious than nonvictims, independently ofshared method variance. The effect sizes were smallerthan for other forms of psychosocial maladjustment,although they were again clearly greater than zero (p!.01). Across studies in which there was shared methodvariance, victimization shared 6.3% of its variance withboth social and general anxiety. When there was noshared method variance, victimization shared 4.3% of itsvariance with general anxiety and 2.0% of its variancewith social anxiety. There are relatively few of thesestudies in which validatedmeasures of generalized anxietyhave been employed, and in which the breadth ofvictimization experience has been assessed. Only one,unpublished, study (Kupersmidt et al., 1997) measuredphysical, verbal relational, and indirect victimization.

General or global self-esteem. A large number of cross-sectional studies have investigated the relation betweenpeer victimization and children’s global or general self-concepts. Across these studies, as shown in Table 5,victimization was correlated with low self-esteem, in-dependently of shared method variance (mean r¯ .21,p! .0001, representing 4.4% shared variance), and moreso in studies in which shared method variance was notavoided (mean r¯ .39, p! .0001, 15.2% shared vari-ance). It is possible that shared method variance may biasthe mean effect sizes across self-concept studies morethan in the studies involving depression, loneliness, andanxiety. This bias is due to the results of four studies byJoseph and his colleagues (Austin & Joseph, 1996;Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Mynard & Joseph, 1997;Neary & Joseph, 1994). Neary and Joseph (1994) de-veloped a self-report peer victimization scale, which theyimmersed in Harter’s (1985) Self-Perception Profile forChildren such that children were asked to respond to itsitems in the same way as they did to other items inHarter’s scale. The same peer victimization scale was usedin the other work published by Joseph and colleagues. Inother words, the methods of assessing victimization andself-concept used by Joseph have even more in commonthan they do in other studies where both variables wereself-assessed (such as Alsaker, 1993; O’Moore & Hillery,1991; Rigby & Slee, 1992; Sharp, 1996; Slee & Rigby,1993b). Sure enough, in Joseph’s work, there are highcorrelations among the subscales of Harter’s measure,and also between these and Joseph’s peer victimizationscale. The mean r for global self-concept across his four

449

PE

ER

VIC

TIM

IZA

TIO

N

Table 4Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Anxiety

Study NAge range


Victimizationsubtypesa

Dependentmeasure r Z

Generalized anxietyWith shared method variance

Slee (1995b) 220 12–17 Self GPV Anxiety .20 2.97Slee (1994a) 363 12–15 Self G Anxiety .29 5.53


Avoiding shared method varianceLagerspetz et al. (1982) 239 12–16 Peers G Q-inventory anxiety .18 2.78Olweus (1978)b 64 13 Teachers PV Q-sort anxiety .24 1.67

Mean effect size .21**

Social anxietyWith shared method variance

Alsaker (1993) 120 6–7 Self, teachers, peers,parents

PVR Fear of peers .13 1.03

Boulton & Smith (1994) 57 8–10 Peers GPV Shyness .17 1.28Slee (1994b) 114 9–13 Self GPV Social avoidance .25 2.67Crick & Grotpeter (1996) 438 8–12 Self PRI Social anxiety .26 5.44Crick & Grotpeter (1996) 438 8–12 Self PRI Social avoidance .30 6.28Slee (1994b) 114 9–13 Self GPV Fear of negative evaluation .40 4.27



parentsPVR Fear of peers .14** 2.50

Overall mean effect sizes for anxiety Shared method variance .25****No shared method variance .19****

a G¯ generic victimization; P¯physical victimization; V¯ verbal victimization; R¯ relational victimization; I¯ indirect victimization.b Boys only.** p! .01; **** p! .0001.

450

D.S.J.

HA

WK

ER

AN

DM

.J.

BO

UL

TO

N

Table 5Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Global}General Self-Esteem

Study NAge range



With shared method varianceO’Moore & Hillery (1991) 783 7–13 Self G .12 3.36Rigby & Slee (1992) 810 12–18 Self GPV .22 6.26Alsaker (1993) 120 6–7 Self, teachers, peers,

parentsPVR .24 5.13

Austin & Joseph (1996) 425 8–11 Self GPV .38 7.70Sharp (1996) 377 11–12 Self PVRI .41 7.96Mynard & Joseph (1997) 179 8–13 Self GPV .45 6.02Slee & Rigby (1993b)b 87 7–13 Self GPV .52 4.85Neary & Joseph (1994)c 60 10–12 Self GPV .53 4.11Callaghan & Joseph (1995) 120 10–12 Self GPV .55 4.26

Mean effect size ±39****


parentsPVR .03 1.75

Lagerspetz et al. (1982) 239 12–16 Peers G .17 2.63Boulton & Smith (1994) 76 8–10 Peers GPV .17 1.51Byrne (1994) 177 Primary & secondary

school ageTeachers, peers PV .23 3.00

Olweus (1978)b 64 13 Teachers PV .26 2.08Neary & Joseph (1994)c 60 10–12 Peers G .22 1.70Callaghan & Joseph (1995) 63 10–12 Peers G .38 2.94


a G¯ generic victimization; P¯physical victimization; V¯ verbal victimization; R¯ relational victimization; I¯ indirect victimization.b Boys only.c Girls only.**** p! .0001.


Table 6Published Studies of the Contemporaneous Association between Victimization and Social Self-esteem

Study NAge range



With shared method varianceO’Moore & Hillery (1991) 783 7–13 Self G .14 3.92Vernberg (1990) 73 12–14 Self GPV .19 1.47Slee & Rigby (1993b)b 87 7–13 Self GPV .26 2.43Austin & Joseph (1996) 425 8–11 Self GPV .39 9.54Neary & Joseph (1994)c 60 10–12 Self GPV .43 3.33Callaghan & Joseph (1995) 120 10–12 Self GPV .49 5.37Mynard & Joseph (1997) 179 8–13 Self GPV .52 6.96


Avoiding shared method varianceBoulton & Smith (1994) 76 8–10 Peers GPV .07 0.59Callaghan & Joseph (1995) 63 10–12 Peers G .23 1.83Boivin & Hymel (1997) 793 8–10 Peers GPV .26 7.32Neary & Joseph (1994)c 60 10–12 Peers G .34 2.63


a G¯ generic victimization; P¯physical victimization; V¯ verbal victimization.b Boys only.c Girls only.**** p! .0001.

studies summarized in Table 5 was .48. In contrast, themean r for global self-concept across the other publishedstudies in which there was shared method variance(Alsaker, 1993; O’Moore & Hillery, 1991; Rigby & Slee,1992; Sharp, 1996; Slee & Rigby, 1993b) was .31. Allmean rs remained highly significant (p! .0001).

Leaving aside these considerations, one of the strengthsof the cross-sectional studies of global self-concepts isthat they have employed a variety of different, widelyused, and empirically validated self-esteem inventories,and consistently found that victims have lower self-esteem than other children. One of the limitations is thatrelational and indirect victimization, according toauthors’ reports, have only been assessed by Sharp (1996;relational and indirect victimization) and Alsaker (1993;relational victimization). Another is that, when sharedmethod variance has been avoided, only one item hasbeen used to measure victimization (except by Byrne,1994).

Social self-concept. Measures of children’s social self-concept index the extent to which they see themselves asbeing socially competent, well-accepted by their peers, orhaving good social relationships. It has generally beenfound that victims tend to have negative views ofthemselves in the social domain, as shown in Table 6.Again, this pattern has been shown with a variety ofwidely used and validated instruments. The mean effectsize for published studies with shared method variancewas .35 (12.3% variance shared between victimizationand social self-esteem), and .23 for those without (5.3%variance shared between the variables) ; both were highlysignificant (p! .0001). The magnitude of effect sizes instudies with shared method variance was again affectedby the measure of victimization used. Across Joseph’sstudies (Austin & Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph,1995; Mynard & Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994)the mean effect size for self-reported victimization andself-reported social self-worth was .46. Across the re-maining studies (O’Moore & Hillery, 1991; Slee & Rigby,1993b; Vernberg, 1990) that relied exclusively on self-reports the mean effect was .20. A major limitation of thisgroup of studies is that none of them employed a

composite measure of victimization which included eitherrelational or indirect victimization.

Summary and Discussion

This paper presented the first meta-analysis of thevictimization-adjustment literature. The pattern of resultsacross cross-sectional studies strongly suggested thatvictims of peer aggression experience more negativeaffect, and negative thoughts about themselves, thanother children. The strength of previous research is in thenumber of studies that have been carried out, using avariety of methods and with participants drawn fromdiverse populations. For ease of comparison of the impactof different adjustment variables and different infor-mants, mean effect sizes from Tables 2 to 6 are sum-marized in Table 7. Table 7 demonstrates clearly thateffect sizes were uniformly larger when there was sharedmethod variance than when there was not. In otherwords, victimization was more strongly correlated withpsychosocial maladjustment when both variables wereassessed by asking the same informants (who were usuallythe participants themselves), than when different inform-ants were used to assess each variable.

Victimization and Different Forms of Maladjustment

The relative sizes of effects for different forms ofmaladjustment are worthy of comment. Several authorshave asserted that victims are typically fearful andanxious (e.g. Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1993a; Rigby, 1996;Ross, 1996; Tattum & Tattum, 1992). Similarly, it iswidely asserted in the bullying literature that victims havelow self-esteem (e.g., by Besag, 1989; Farrington, 1993;Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Olweus, 1993a; Perry,Perry, & Kennedy, 1992; Randall, 1996; and Ross, 1996).In contrast, the largest effect sizes in this meta-analysiswere for depression, and the smallest for anxiety. Effectsizes for loneliness, and social and global or general self-esteem, were midway between these. Additionally, effectsfor social and global self-esteem were substantiallylowered after excluding a group of studies (Austin &


Table 7Summary of Published Studies of the Associations between Victimization andPsychosocial Maladjustment

Mean effect sizes (rs)

Dependent variableFor studies avoiding

shared method varianceFor studies with

shared method variance

Depression .29 .45Loneliness .25 .32Global self-esteem .21 .39Social self-concept .23 .35Social anxiety .14* .25Generalized anxiety .21* .25Anxiety overall (social}generalized)

.19 .25

* p!±01. All other rs significant, p! .0001.

Joseph, 1996; Callaghan & Joseph, 1995; Mynard &Joseph, 1997; Neary & Joseph, 1994) that used similarlystructured victimization and self-concept measures. Alltogether these results suggest that, while victims areindeed generally and socially anxious and have low globaland social self-esteem, they are even more stronglycharacterized by feelings of loneliness and dysphoria.

This is an important observation, and one whichdeserves further investigation. These dysphoric feelingsmay find an explanation in social rank theory (Gilbert,1992), which proposes that social experiences like victim-ization are implicated particularly in the development ofdepression. The associations of victimization with anxietyand a poor self-concept were first observed in pioneeringresearch (Olweus, 1978), in which depression and lone-liness were not assessed. One might hypothesize thatthese associations, being less strong across studies, aredue primarily to the comorbidity of anxiety and low-self-esteem with depression. Unfortunately, the studies re-viewed here do not allow a test of this depressionhypothesis. To test the hypothesis, it is necessary to usemore than one adjustment variable as a predictor ofconcurrent victimization, while controlling for the cor-relations between different forms of adjustment. In arecent study (Hawker & Boulton, 1998) we comparedself-reported depressed mood, loneliness, anxiety, andsocial and global self-esteem as predictors of contem-poraneous peer victimization among children aged be-tween 8 and 12 years. When intercorrelations betweendifferent forms of maladjustment were controlled, all ofthem were related to self-reported victimization, butdepression and loneliness emerged as the strongestpredictors of peer-reported victimization. These resultsoffer some tentative support to the depression hypothesis.Replications using similar designs would help showwhether victimization is primarily related to children’snegative thoughts about themselves and their lives, totheir socially related concerns, to their anxiety-relatedcognitions, or to some combination of these.

Another type of comparison available in Table 7 isbetween forms of maladjustment that might be describedas primarily social (loneliness, social self-concept, andsocial anxiety) and those that might be described asprimarily psychological (depression, global self-concept,and generalized anxiety). Given that peer victimization isa social experience, one might expect it to be morestrongly related to social than to psychological forms ofmaladjustment. In fact there is no evidence for thisproposition here. If anything it seems the other way

around. Across the studies, victimization was no morestrongly related to social self-worth than to global self-worth. Victimization was marginally less strongly relatedto social anxiety than to generalized anxiety, and lessstrongly related to loneliness than to depression. It wouldbe unwise, given the variation in adjustment measures, tomake too much of the greater effects for psychologicalmaladjustment. But these results make it clear, at least,that victims’ emotional suffering is not confined to thesocial domain. Again, it is difficult to say whethervictimization is primarily related to social or to psycho-logical forms of maladjustment, without conducting astudy which controls for the relation between differentforms of maladjustment.

General Implications for Future Research

A number of more specific limitations of the studiesreviewed here could be addressed in future research.First, few previous studies have included relational orindirect victimization, either in their own right (e.g.,Alsaker, 1993; Crick & Grotpeter, 1996; Kochenderfer &Ladd, 1996), or as part of an index of compositevictimization (e.g., Boulton & Underwood, 1992; Sharp,1996). Even when one of these forms of victimization wasassessed, either the other form or verbal victimizationusually was not. It is possible that effect sizes have beenexaggerated or under-estimated as a consequence. Se-cond, although in several studies multiple items have beenused in the self-assessment of victimization, there is ashortage of studies that have used more than one item inpeer-assessments of victimization. Third, researchershave generally reported significance levels but not effectsizes. This practice may encourage the impression that asingle study can show, on the basis of an arbitrarysignificance level, whether or not victimization is relatedto a particular form of maladjustment. We haveattempted to show in this review that it is more effectiveto combine effect sizes across studies than to baseconclusions on the results of significance tests in a singlestudy. Fourth, there is a need for studies of children fromcultural backgrounds that are not Scandinavian orEnglish-speaking. Fifth, it would be valuable to inves-tigate moderating effects on victims’ adjustment ofvariables such as disability, age, gender, and sexualorientation. A recent example, using a slightly differentmethodology, is Rivers’ (in press) retrospective study offormer victims’ reports of adjustment as a function oftheir sexuality.


Inmanyways, however, the strengths of cross-sectionalstudies outweigh their weaknesses. Together they dem-onstrate that victims of peer aggression suffer a variety offeelings of psychosocial distress. They feel more anxious,socially anxious, depressed, lonely, and worse aboutthemselves than do nonvictims. The evidence suggeststhat these feelings occur among victims of both sexes, ofall age groups, and of all subtypes of aggression. Acrossstudies in which different informants’ reports were usedto measure victimization and adjustment, the aggregatedeffects show that victims’ reports of distress cannot beexplained away as an artefact of shared method variance.That is, children who are seen as victims by their peerstend to report greater distress than children who are notseen as victims by their peers. Conclusions such as thesehave been drawn before from single empirical studies orin qualitative review papers. Here they are clearlydemonstrated in a pattern of aggregated quantitativeeffects. They are not pleasant conclusions ; they reveal apattern of distress that can no longer be ignored.

We suggest that the strongest implication of theseconclusions is that there is little need now for furthercross-sectional studies of peer victimization and psycho-social maladjustment. It is clear enough already thatvictims are distressed. There is some value in designingstudies which will address some of the limitations of pastresearch, by accounting for issues such as comorbidity,the measurement of victimization, and cross-culturalvariability. Otherwise it is time for victimization researchto move on. Early studies of bullying and victimization,ably reviewed by Farrington (1993), answered questionsabout prevalence. More recent studies, including thosereviewed here, focused on the correlates of victimization.We suggest that it is time for researchers to look atquestions that arise out of the conclusions of the currentmeta-analysis. Among these questions are matters of risk,causation, the differential relation of maladjustment tosubtypes of victimization, the role of victimization inclinical presentations, and interventions to reducevictims’ distress. Some studies have been published whichbegin to address these questions (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter,1996; Cunningham et al., 1998; Kochenderfer & Ladd,1996; Olweus, 1993a,b; Salmon, James, Cassidy, &Javaloyes, 1999; Smith & Sharp, 1994). But they arefar fewer in number than the cross-sectional studiesincorporated in this meta-analysis. If more researchersdevote themselves to addressing these more complexquestions, then practitioners may begin to make aserious impact on the distress that children feel whenthey are bullied.

Acknowledgements—This work was completed with financialassistance from the University of Keele. Portions of the materialwere presented at the biennial meeting of the InternationalSociety for the Study of Behavioral Development, Berne, July1998, and to the British Psychological Society, London,December 1998. We are grateful to Precilla Y. L. Choi, SusanA. O’Neill, and Peter K. Smith for their comments on earlierdrafts of this manuscript.

References

Data from the asterisked papers were included in the meta-analysis.

* Alsaker, F. D. (1993). Isolement et maltraitance par les pairsdans les jardins d’enfants : comment mesurer ces phe!nome' nes

et quelles sont leurs conse!quences? [Isolation and peer abusein day-care centres : How can these phenomena be measuredand what are their consequences?] Enfance, 47, 241–260.

Ambert, A.-M. (1995). Toward a theory of peer abuse.Sociological Studies of Children, 7, 177–205.

Asher, S. R., & Wheeler, V. A. (1985). Children’s loneliness : Acomparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500–505.

* Austin, S., & Joseph, S. (1996). Assessment of bully}victimproblems in 8- to 11-year-olds. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 66, 447–456.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Besag, V. E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. MiltonKeynes, U.K.: Open University.

Birleson, P. (1981). The validity of depressive disorder inchildhood and the development of a self rating scale : Aresearch report. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,22, 73–88.

Bjo$ rkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, andindirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles,30, 177–188.

* Bjo$ rkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bulliesand victims: Their ego picture, ideal ego picture andnormative ego picture. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,23, 307–313.

* Boivin, M., & Hymel, S. (1997). Peer experiences and socialself-perceptions: A sequential model. Developmental Psy-chology, 33, 135–145.

* Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Bukowski, W. M. (1995). The rolesof social withdrawal, peer rejection, and victimization bypeers in predicting loneliness and depressed mood in child-hood. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 765–685.

* Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bully}victim problemsin middle-school children: Stability, self-perceived compet-ence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, 12, 315–329.

Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully}victimproblems among middle school children. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 62, 73–87.

* Byrne, B. J. (1994). Bullies and victims in a school setting withreference to some Dublin schools. The Irish Journal ofPsychology, 15, 574–586.

* Callaghan, S., & Joseph, S. (1995). Self-concept and peervictimization among schoolchildren. Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 18, 161–163.

Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victim-ization, depression, anxiety, and aggression in elementaryschool children. Personality and Individual Differences, 24,123–130.

Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overtvictimization: A multi-informant approach. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 337–347.

* Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatmentby peers : Victims of relational and overt aggression. Devel-opment and Psychopathology, 8, 367–380.

Crick, N. R., Wellman, N. E., Casas, J. F., O’Brien, K. M.,Nelson, D. A., Grotpeter, J. K., & Markon, K. (1999).Childhood aggression and gender : A new look at an oldproblem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium onMotivation, 45. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran,A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R. (1998). The effects of primarydivision student-mediated conflict resolution programs onplayground aggression. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 39, 653–662.

Dawkins, J. (1995). Bullying in schools : Doctors’ responsi-bilities. British Medical Journal, 310, 274–275.

Eason, L. J., Finch, A. J., Jr., Brasted, W., & Saylor, C. F.(1985). The assessment of depression and anxiety in hospital-ized pediatric patients. Child Psychiatry and Human De-velopment, 16, 57–64.


Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bully-ing. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice, Vol. 17. Chicago:University of Chicago.

Gilbert, P. (1992). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness.Hove, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (1998). Self-blame and peervictimization in middle school : An attributional analysis.Developmental Psychology, 34, 587–599.

Hammen, C. L., & Glass, D. R. (1975). Depression, activityand evaluation of reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psy-chology, 84, 718–721.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile forChildren. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Haselager, G. J. T. (1997). Classmates: Studies on the devel-opment of their relationships and personality in middle child-hood. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Catholic University ofNijmegen, The Netherlands.

Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (1998). Peer victimization:Cause and consequence of psychosocial maladjustment? Manu-script submitted for publication.

Hazler, R. J., & Hoover, J. H. (Eds.). (1996). Putting bullies outof business. [Special Issue]. Journal of Emotional and Be-havioural Problems, 5(1).

Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rded.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

*Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victim-isation: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment?Child Development, 67, 1305–1317.

Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory Manual.North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Kumpulainen, K., Raesaenen, E., Henttonen, I., Almqvist, F.,Kresanov, K., Linna, S. L., Moilanen, I., Piha, J., Puura, K.,& Tamminen, T. (1998). Bullying and psychiatric symptomsamong elementary school-age children. Child Abuse andNeglect, 22, 705–717.

Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1991). Childhood peerrejection, aggression, withdrawal, and perceived competenceas predictors of self-reported behavior problems in pre-adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19,427–449.

Kupersmidt, J. B., Voegler, M. E., Sigda, K. B., & Sedikides,C. (1997, April). Social self discrepancy theory: Socialself-cognitions as mediators of peer relations problemsand concurrent adjustment. In A. H. N. Cillessen & M. E.DeRosier (Chairs), Linking peer relations and adjustment :The role of interpersonal perceptions. Symposium conductedat the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Washington, DC.

* Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Bjo$ rkqvist, K., Berts, M., & King, E.(1982). Group aggression among school children in threeschools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 45–52.

Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Socialanxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and low self-esteem.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 221–229.

MacLeod, M., & Morris, M. (1996). Why me? Children talk toChildLine about bullying. London: ChildLine.

*Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (1997). Bully}victim problems andtheir association with Eysenck’s personality dimensions in 8-to 13-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Psychology,

67, 51–54.*Neary, A., & Joseph, S. (1994). Peer victimization and its

relationship to self-concept and depression among school-girls. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 183–186.

*Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies andwhipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere (Wiley).

Olweus, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and whatwe can do. Oxford: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1993b). Victimization by peers : Antecedents andlong-term consequences. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition and shyness in childhood.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*O’Moore, A. M., & Hillery, B. (1991). What do teachers need

to know. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Bullying: A practical guide forcoping in schools. Harlow, U.K.: Longman.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Peer rejection in middleschool : Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, andinterpersonal concerns. Developmental Psychology, 28,231–241.

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peeraggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807–814.

Perry, D. G., Perry, L. C., & Kennedy, E. (1992). Conflict andthe development of antisocial behaviour. In C. U. Shantz &W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Conflict in child and adolescent de-velopment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pierce, S. (1990). The behavioral attributes of victimized children.Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida Atlantic University.

Randall, P. (1996). A community approach to bullying. Stoke-on-Trent, U.K.: Trentham Books.

Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it.London: Jessica Kingsley.

*Rigby, K. & Slee, P. T. (1992). Dimensions of interpersonalrelation among Australian children and implications forpsychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology,133, 33–42.

Rivers, I. (in press). The long-term consequences of bullying. InC. Neal & D. Davies (Eds.), Further client issues in pinktherapy. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Rivers, I., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Types of bullying behaviourand their correlates. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 359–368.

Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for socialresearch. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 118, 183–192.

Ross, D. M. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing: Whatschool personnel, other professionals, and parents can do.Alexandria, VA: American Counselling Association.

Salmon, G., James, A., Cassidy, E. L., & Javaloyes, M. A.(1999). Bullying; a review: Clinical presentations to inpatientand outpatient psychiatric services. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Salmon, G., James, A., & Smith, D. M. (1998). Bullying inschools : Self-reported anxiety, depression, and self-esteem insecondary school children. British Medical Journal, 317,924–925.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). Theemergence of chronic victimization in boys’ peer groups.Child Development, 64, 1755–1772.

* Sharp, S. (1996). Self-esteem, response style and victimization:Possible ways of preventing victimization through parentingand school based training programs. School PsychologyInternational, 17, 347–357.

Skinner, A. (1996). Bullying: An annotated bibliography ofliterature and resources (2nd ed.). Leicester, U.K.: YouthWork Press.

* Slee, P. T. (1994a). Life at school used to be so good. YouthStudies Australia, 1 (Summer), 20–23.

* Slee, P. T. (1994b). Situational and interpersonal correlates ofanxiety associated with peer victimisation. Child Psychiatryand Human Development, 25, 97–107.

Slee, P. T. (1995a). Bullying in the playground: The impact ofinter-personal violence on Australian children’s perceptionsof their play environment. Children’s Environments, 12,320–327.

* Slee, P. T. (1995b). Bullying: Health concerns of Australiansecondary school students. International Journal of Ado-lescence and Youth, 5, 215–224.

* Slee, P. T. (1995c). Peer victimization and its relationship todepression among Australian primary school students. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 18, 57–62.

Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993a). Australian school children’sself appraisal of interpersonal relations : The bullying ex-perience. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 23,273–282.

* Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993b). The relationship of Eysenck’s


personality factors and self-esteem to bully-victim behaviourin Australian schoolboys. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 14, 371–373.

Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1994). Peer victimisation at school.AECA Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19, 3–10.

Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.) (1994). School bullying: Insightsand perspectives. London: Routledge.

Stanley, L., & Arora, T. (1998). Social exclusion amongstadolescent girls : Their self-esteem and coping strategies.Educational Psychology in Practice, 14, 94–100.

Strauss, C. C., Lahey, B. B., Frick, P., Frame, C. L., & Hynd,G. W. (1988). Peer social status of children with anxietydisorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,137–141.

Strube, M. J. (1985). Combining and comparing significancelevels from nonindependent hypothesis tests. PsychologicalBulletin, 97, 334–341.

Tattum, D., & Tattum, E. (1992). Bullying: A whole-schoolresponse. In N. Jones & E. B. Jones (Eds.), Learning tobehave: Curriculum and whole-school management approachesto discipline. London: Kogan Page.

*Vernberg, E. M. (1990). Psychological adjustment and ex-perience with peers during early adolescence: Reciprocal,incidental, or unidirectional relationships? Journal of Ab-normal Child Psychology, 18, 187–198.

Vosk, B., Forehand, R., Parker, J. B., & Rickard, K. (1982). Amultimethod comparison of popular and unpopular children.Developmental Psychology, 18, 571–575.

Walker, L. S., & Greene, J. W. (1986). The social-context ofadolescent self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15,315–322.

West, D. A., Kellner, R., & Moorewest, M. (1986). The effectsof loneliness—a review of the literature. ComprehensivePsychiatry, 27, 351–363.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature andextent of bullying in junior}middle and secondary schools.Educational Research, 35, 3–25.

Williams, K., Chambers, M., Logan, S., & Robinson, D. (1996).Association of common health symptoms with bullying inprimary school children. British Medical Journal, 313, 17–19.

Manuscript accepted 17 September 1999

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.

Users should refer to the original published version of the material.

Documents

2000 - Twenty Years’ Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment. a Meta-Analytic Review of Cross Sectional Studies