This study identified profiles of internalizing (anxiety and depression) and externalizing (delinquency and violence against peers) symptoms among bullying victims and examined associations between bullying victimization characteristics and profile membership. The sample consisted of 1196 bullying victims in grades 8-10 (M = 14.4, SD = 1.01) who participated in The Context Study in three North Carolina counties in Fall 2003. Five profiles were identified using latent profile analysis: an asymptomatic profile and four profiles capturing combinations of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Associations between bullying characteristics and membership in symptom profiles were tested using multinomial logistic regression. More frequent victimization increased odds of membership in the two high internalizing profiles compared to the asymptomatic profile. Across all multinomial logistic regression models, when the high internalizing, high externalizing profile was the reference category, adolescents who received any type of bullying (direct, indirect, or dual) were more likely to be in this category than any others.

The Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale (MPVS; Mynard & Joseph, 2000) is a 16-item self-report scale that captures peer victimization across four dimensions: physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, and attacks on property. Performance of the scale has not been evaluated among older adolescents. We examined the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, and performance of the scale in two separate epidemiological U.S. samples representing different age groups: 9-14 year olds (N=610) and 15-17 year olds (N=524). The four-factor structure of the scale was affirmed in both samples, however; there was not metric invariance by gender in the younger age group. The scale and its subscales were found to have good internal consistency. Expected relationships between the MPVS and measures of irritability, anxiety, and depression were affirmed. Results support continued use of the MPVS among child and adolescent samples.

This short-term longitudinal study examined whether the association between bullying perpetration and later physical dating violence perpetration and mediators of that association (via anger, depression, anxiety, and social status), varied depending on level of bullying victimization. Differences have been noted between those who bully but are not victims of bullying, and those who are both bullies and victims. These differences may influence dating violence risk and the explanations for why bullying leads to dating violence. Data were from dating adolescents in three rural counties who completed self-administered questionnaires in the fall semester of grades 8–10 and again in the spring semester. The sample (N =2,414) was 44.08% male and 61.31% white. Bullying perpetration in the fall semester predicted physical dating violence perpetration in the spring semester when there was no bullying victimization, but not when there was any bullying victimization. Bullying perpetration was positively associated with anger at all levels of bullying victimization and with social status when there was no or low amounts of victimization; it was negatively associated with social status at high levels of victimization. Bullying victimization was positively associated with anger, depression, and anxiety at all levels of bullying perpetration. Anger mediated the association between bullying perpetration and dating violence, regardless of level of victimization; depression, anxiety, and social status did not mediate the association at any level of bullying victimization. The findings have implications for dating violence prevention efforts and for future research on the link between bullying and dating violence.

Work schedules are a central theme in the work-family challenges of low-wage hourly workers. Yet, research on scheduling patterns among this worker population has primarily focused on nonstandard schedules. We know very little about the scheduling patterns of workers in hourly jobs with standard fixed schedules. Knowledge about the key scheduling challenges by schedule type is necessary to develop targeted workplace solutions, such as flexible work arrangements, to enhance work-life fit among workers in low-wage hourly jobs. Using the 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce, bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to determine (1) the prevalence of rigid, unpredictable and unstable work schedules among lowwage hourly workers employed in jobs with standard and nonstandard schedules and whether there is variation in these scheduling practices among full-and part-time workers; and (2) the individual or job characteristics that influence the odds of experiencing rigid, unpredictable or unstable work schedules. Results indicate that rigid and unpredictable schedule practices are most prevalent among low-wage hourly workers in full-time standard-hour jobs and part-time nonstandard-hour jobs, while unstable scheduling practices are most prevalent among hourly workers in full-and part-time nonstandard-hour jobs. Implications and limitations of the research are discussed.

Background: The goal of the present investigation was to clarify and compare the structure of genetic and environmental influences on different types (e.g., physical, verbal) of peer victimization experienced by youth in pre-/early adolescence and mid-/late adolescence. Method: Physical, verbal, social, and property-related peer victimization experiences were assessed in two twin samples (306 pairs, ages 9–14 and 294 pairs, ages 15–20). Cholesky decompositions of individual differences in victimization were conducted, and independent pathway (IP) and common pathway (CP) twin models were tested in each sample. Results: In the younger sample, a Cholesky decomposition best described the structure of genetic and environmental contributors to peer victimization, with no evidence that common additive genetic or environmental factors influence different types of peer victimization. In the older sample, common environmental factors influenced peer victimization types via a general latent liability for peer victimization (i.e., a CP model). Conclusions: Whereas the pre-/early adolescent sample demonstrated no evidence of a shared genetic and environmental structure for different types of peer victimization, the mid-/late adolescent sample demonstrates the emergence of an environmentally-driven latent liability for peer victimization across peer victimization types.